http://convicts.sturgess.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Admin&feedformat=atomConvict Transportation - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T15:00:28ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.26.2http://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=583Early Australian Convict Transportation2017-01-14T05:38:21Z<p>Admin: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Erica Charters, 'Disease, War and the Imperial State: The Welfare of the British Armed Forces during the Seven Years' War', University of Chicago Press, 2014.'''<br />
<br />
One of the reasons why Australian convict transportation is worthy of study by a wider community of scholars, is that this was one of the earliest examples of the state becoming involved in public health management. The surgeon superintendents who were appointed to manage the convicts throughout the voyage from 1815, were responsible for ensuring that the convicts cleaned themselves and their berths, and that they regularly changed their clothes, and not merely for attending to them when they were ill. Prior to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, former naval surgeons could not be spared for this service, but from the turn of the century, the Home Office and the Transport Board issued instructions to the ships' surgeons, and scrutinised their conduct upon arrival in the colony. So successful was this scheme, that it was later adopted on emigrant ships, and on vessels carrying indentured servants from India to the West Indies and Africa.<br />
<br />
Public health regulations were issued on some troop ships throughout late 18th and early 19th centuries, particularly on voyages to and from the East Indies, but there is (as yet) no evidence that it was routinely done. Erica Charters provides us with yet another precedent. It is understandable that military commanders would be concerned about the physical wellbeing of their men: what was not clear to me until I recently read her book, was that this involved them in supervising their dietary and sanitary arrangements.<br />
<br />
Once again we find ourselves in the seemingly mundane world of resource management and logistics. Charters belongs to that tradition of naval studies which is concerned with bureaucracy and administration. This movement was launched by Ian Christie at University College London in the 1960s and 1970s, and subsequently pursued by his students Mary Condon, David Syrett, Norman Baker, Roger Knight and Roger Morriss. It was, in a sense, an outgrowth of John Brewer's work on the fiscal-military state, paying close attention to how public resources were spent, as Brewer had been concerned about their collection.<br />
<br />
Inevitably, this led the members of this school, most notably Syrett, Baker and Knight, to study the role of contracting in the repeated success of the British military throughout the long 18th century. Even the American War of Independence, the one war which the British did not win, was remarkable in the logistical support that was provided for an army operating four thousand miles from home.<br />
<br />
Roger Morriss concluded his 2011 book, 'The Foundations of British Maritime Ascendancy', with the observation: "It was the capability of the military bureaucracy which assured Britain if victory at sea and of an effective army in its land campaigns. The success of this state bureaucracy in turn depended upon reform in government, partnership with the private sector, and experience in managing support for the armed forces by sea."<br />
<br />
Roger Knight concluded his 2010 study of naval victualling throughout the French and Napoleonic Wars: "Success in war was not only dependent upon a plentiful supply of money, but also the ability to spend it to best effect. It has long been established that the British state was more adept at tapping taxpayers' purses than its rivals, but its ability to spend that money wisely was equally important. It did so through a multitude of departments much like the Victualling Board. Their administrative acumen and their effective engagement with and management of countless contractors gave Great Britain the decisive edge in the Great Wars with France."<br />
<br />
Erica Charters has taken a similar approach to the management of disease in the military, with particular focus on the Seven Years War, and it is thus unsurprising that it was Roger Knight who referred me to this book. Charters argues that 'Britain's fiscal-military power was necessary for victory, but it was also the conservation of manpower and the prudent use of resources that ensured global success. . . The successful fiscal-military state was a caring fiscal-military state, one that paid attention to and invested in the welfare of its armed forces'. (p.3)<br />
<br />
Because of the theories of disease that prevailed at the time, particularly the miasma hypothesis as to the dissemination of disease, the health of the troops was seen as a question of good management. This was particularly so with the crowding diseases, most notably typhus (known as among soldiers as camp fever, and among convicts, as gaol fever). While the vector which spread typhus would not be known fun til the early 20th century, the importance of ventilation, exercise and clean quarters was widely recognised (albeit for the wrong reasons). An outbreak of camp fever reflected very badly on the senior officers. While it was entirely misconceived, the miasma theory drove a search for systemic solutions.<br />
<br />
It would not be until the 1930s that the role of Vitamin C in preventing scurvy would be understood, but military officers and medical practitioners of the mid-18th understood that fresh fruit and vegetables were fundamental in the fight against this disease. This was not discovered by James Lind or James Cook. The problem was that they had no way of preserving fruit and vegetables on a long ocean voyage or through the long northern winters. But this fact - the recognition of a link between diet and scurvy - meant that an outbreak of the disease in circumstances where it could have been prevented reflected very badly on the managerial capabilities of the officers in question.<br />
<br />
Military commanders ordered seeds from their headquarters, they planted gardens so as to have a supply of fresh vegetables in the spring and summer, and they were criticised by the press and by the general public when they presided over large mortality rates among their troops.<br />
<br />
Of course, the convicts sent to New South Wales were not regarded as a national resource in the same way that her soldiers were - although the Governors who were responsible for the administration of the colony certainly did (and particularly in the early years). But high mortality rates on the Second Fleet (1790), and later on the Hillsborough (1798) and the Atlas (1802) were looked upon as a failure of management, and those who were responsible for the management systems were closely scrutinised.<br />
<br />
Charters helps us to understand why management - good and bad - lies at the heart of European Australia's foundation myth.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 14 January 2017<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Provisions for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Mutinies on Convict Transports]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| [[Mutinies]]<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=582Early Australian Convict Transportation2017-01-14T05:22:36Z<p>Admin: /* What I'm Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Erica Charters, 'Disease, War and the Imperial State: The Welfare of the British Armed Forces during the Seven Years' War', University of Chicago Press, 2014.'''<br />
<br />
One of the reasons why Australian convict transportation is worthy of study by a wider community of scholars, is that this was one of the earliest examples of the state becoming involved in public health management. The surgeon superintendents who were appointed to manage the convicts throughout the voyage from 1815, were responsible for ensuring that the convicts cleaned themselves and their berths, and that they regularly changed their clothes, and not merely for attending to them when they were ill. Prior to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, former naval surgeons could not be spared for this service, but from the turn of the century, the Home Office and the Transport Board issued instructions to the ships' surgeons, and scrutinised their conduct upon arrival in the colony. So successful was this scheme, that it was later adopted on emigrant ships, and on vessels carrying indentured servants from India to the West Indies and Africa.<br />
<br />
Public health regulations were issued on some troop ships throughout late 18th and early 19th centuries, particularly on voyages to and from the East Indies, but there is (as yet) no evidence that it was routinely done. Erica Charters provides us with yet another precedent. It is understandable that military commanders would be concerned about the physical wellbeing of their men: what was not clear to me until I recently read her book, was that this involved them in supervising their dietary and sanitary arrangements.<br />
<br />
Once again we find ourselves in the seemingly mundane world of resource management and logistics. Charters belongs to that tradition of naval studies which is concerned with bureaucracy and administration. This movement was launched by Ian Christie at University College London in the 1960s and 1970s, and subsequently pursued by his students Mary Condon, David Syrett, Norman Baker, Roger Knight and Roger Morriss. It was, in a sense, an outgrowth of John Brewer's work on the fiscal-military state, paying close attention to how public resources were spent, as Brewer had been concerned about their collection.<br />
<br />
Inevitably, this led the members of this school, most notably Syrett, Baker and Knight, to study the role of contracting in the repeated success of the British military throughout the long 18th century. Even the American War of Independence, the one war which the British did not win, was remarkable in the logistical support that was provided for an army operating four thousand miles from home.<br />
<br />
Roger Morriss concluded his 2011 book, 'The Foundations of British Maritime Ascendancy', with the observation: "It was the capability of the military bureaucracy which assured Britain if victory at sea and of an effective army in its land campaigns. The success of this state bureaucracy in turn depended upon reform in government, partnership with the private sector, and experience in managing support for the armed forces by sea."<br />
<br />
Roger Knight concluded his 2010 study of naval victualling throughout the French and Napoleonic Wars: "Success in war was not only dependent upon a plentiful supply of money, but also the ability to spend it to best effect. It has long been established that the British state was more adept at tapping taxpayers' purses than its rivals, but its ability to spend that money wisely was equally important. It did so through a multitude of departments much like the Victualling Board. Their administrative acumen and their effective engagement with and management of countless contractors gave Great Britain the decisive edge in the Great Wars with France."<br />
<br />
Erica Charters has taken a similar approach to the management of disease in the military, with particular focus on the Seven Years War, and it is thus unsurprising that it was Roger Knight who referred me to this book. Charters argues that 'Britain's fiscal-military power was necessary for victory, but it was also the conservation of manpower and the prudent use of resources that ensured global success. . . The successful fiscal-military state was a caring fiscal-military state, one that paid attention to and invested in the welfare of its armed forces'. (p.3)<br />
<br />
Because of the theories of disease that prevailed at the time, particularly the miasma hypothesis as to the dissemination of disease, the health of the troops was seen as a question of good management. This was particularly so with the crowding diseases, most notably typhus (known as among soldiers as camp fever, and among convicts, as gaol fever). While the vector which spread typhus would not be known fun til the early 20th century, the importance of ventilation, exercise and clean quarters was widely recognised (albeit for the wrong reasons). An outbreak of camp fever reflected very badly on the senior officers. While it was entirely misconceived, the miasma theory drove a search for systemic solutions.<br />
<br />
It would not be until the 1930s that the role of Vitamin C in preventing scurvy would be understood, but military officers and medical practitioners of the mid-18th understood that fresh fruit and vegetables were fundamental in the fight against this disease. This was not discovered by James Lind or James Cook. The problem was that they had no way of preserving fruit and vegetables on a long ocean voyage or through the long northern winters. But this fact - the recognition of a link between diet and scurvy - meant that an outbreak of the disease in circumstances where it could have been prevented reflected very badly on the managerial capabilities of the officers in question.<br />
<br />
Military commanders ordered seeds from their headquarters, they planted gardens so as to have a supply of fresh vegetables in the spring and summer, and they were criticised by the press and by the general public when they presided over large mortality rates among their troops.<br />
<br />
Of course, the convicts sent to New South Wales were not regarded as a national resource in the same way that her soldiers were - although the Governors who were responsible for the administration of the colony certainly did (and particularly in the early years). But high mortality rates on the Second Fleet (1790), and later on the Hillsborough (1798) and the Atlas (1802) were looked upon as a failure of management, and those who were responsible for the management systems were closely scrutinised.<br />
<br />
Charters helps us to understand why management - good and bad - lies at the heart of European Australia's foundation myth.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 14 January 2017<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Provisions for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Mutinies on Convict Transports]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| [[Mutinies]]<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies_on_Convict_Transports&diff=581Mutinies on Convict Transports2016-07-06T14:25:08Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>Paper delivered to the 7<sup>th</sup> International Congress of Maritime History,</center><br />
<br />
<center>Perth, Western Australia on 27 June 2016</center><br />
<br />
<center>by Gary L. Sturgess </center><br />
<br />
''' Abstract '''<br />
<br />
Of the 47 ships that carried convicts to New South Wales between 1787 and 1801, one in four experienced a mutiny, actual or planned, by the convicts and/or the soldiers. For the most part, this was an Irish problem, with the conspiracies involving hardened political rebels with antipathy to the British Crown.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the course of these mutinies and conspiracies, the violence employed in suppressing them, the conditions that contributed to the fear of mutiny and the use of excess violence, and subsequent legal oversight.<br />
<br />
= False Alarms? =<br />
In a paper written on the ship as he returned home from New South Wales in 1801, recently-retired Governor John Hunter observed that rumours of planned mutinies on convict ships were sometimes used to justify abusive behaviour:<br />
<br />
. . . the creating false alarms of mutiny or insurrection, has some times excused the inforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline, <nowiki>and this, rather than real disease, caused in this ship [the </nowiki>''Hillsborough''] so great a proportion. . . to die. . . The alarm of mutiny is a very convenient cloak for cruelty; and if the prisoners were better treated, there would be less occasion to dread it; but it is an excuse for every thing wicked that a bad man can devise.<ref name="ftn1"> John Hunter, ''Remarks on the Causes of the Colonial Expense of the Establishment of New South Wales, &c'', London, 1802, p.48.</ref><br />
<br />
Two decades later, Commissioner John Bigge, who had been sent out to investigate the transportation system on behalf of the British government, wrote that ‘the fear of combinations amongst the convicts to take the ship, is proved by experience of later years to be groundless. . .’<ref name="ftn2"> John Bigge, ‘Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed by the House of Commons, 19 June 1822, ''House of Commons Parliamentary Papers'', p.3.</ref><br />
<br />
Hunter had never spent time on a convict transport: he had originally sailed out with the First Fleet, but he had done so on the quarter deck of ''HMS Sirius'', one of two naval vessels accompanying the expedition, and the risk of a mutiny on that voyage was minimised by the large number of marines being sent out to the new settlement. Bigge had sailed to New South Wales on the ''John Barry'', a copybook of a convict voyage, with an experienced surgeon superintendent and three teachers, very little sickness, no deaths, and no mutiny or rumour thereof. He had no knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in the early years of transportation.<br />
<br />
In fact, over the first decade and a half of the Australian transportation system, from 1787 until 1801, there were 11 mutinies and conspiracies – more than one in four of the ships that carried male convicts and/or soldiers to New South Wales in that period. Of these, there were five actual mutinies (one of them successful) and six conspiracies that were sufficiently advanced for clear evidence to exist of the mutineers’ intentions (such as large numbers of cut irons or the accumulation of implements that could be used for that purpose).<br />
<br />
There were a further eight ships where rumours of a planned conspiracy provoked some kind of intervention on the part of the ships’ officers, and where the seriousness of the situation is open to debate. What cannot be denied, however, is that many of the mariners and free passengers who sailed on these voyages were terrified of an uprising by the convicts and/or the soldiers (many of the latter having been recently been released from gaol themselves).<br />
<br />
Knowing that James Willcocks, the master of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), would shortly be killed by mutinous soldiers on the outward voyage, it is difficult not to be moved by his increasingly desperate pleas for intervention by the authorities before his ship sailed from Portsmouth. Willcocks was no coward: when his ship had been taken by a French privateer on her previous voyage, he had insisted on remaining on board and had convinced his captors that they should release her.<ref name="ftn3"> Journal of the ''Lady Shore'', IOR L/MAR/B/429B, 19-22 July 1796.</ref><br />
<br />
But as he prepared to sail for New South Wales in April 1797 with a shipload of female convicts and a detachment of British, French and Irish recruits being sent out to the settlement, Willcocks was terrified at the incendiary behaviour of some of the soldiers, and asked for their firearms to be taken away. When their commanding officer, Colonel Francis Grose, came on board to investigate, his concerns were dismissed and Willcocks was accused of being violent and overbearing. The unfortunate man resigned himself to his situation and set about preparing his will.<ref name="ftn4"> J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, pp.188-189; King to the Transport Board, 23 May 1797, TNA ADM108/46/324; Willcocks to King, 27 May 1797, TNA HO42/40/134-136a. His will is at TNA Prob 11/1307.</ref><br />
<br />
Passengers on the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) were mortified when they discovered that 140 of the convicts were being admitted on deck for fresh air at one time. Some of the prisoners had boasted that they would take the ship, and the passengers organised their own watch to supplement the one provided by the guard. James Wilshire, who was going out to the settlement to take up a position in the commissariat, wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Before we left Spithead they said if they should take the ship from us, they would make every one walk the plank. The Captain is a very religious and I believe a very good man, but I am afraid he shows too much lenity to such vile depraved characters, as I am afraid that all the comforts and attention for their good which possibly can be shown will, [at] the first opportunity, be inhumanly repaid by putting us under the greatest tortures of death which possibly be described. . .</nowiki><ref name="ftn5"> James Wilshire, ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 22 June 1800.</ref><br />
<br />
There was no mutiny on the ''Royal Admiral'', and we will never know whether the convicts were serious in their boasts about taking the ship. What cannot be denied is that James Wilshire and his fellow passengers were in fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
Questions of security and freedom mattered – too much liberty and some of the prisoners would mutiny or escape; too little and more of them would die from sickness and disease. If the ships’ officers routinely over-estimated the prospect of an uprising and confined the prisoners too much, they were responsible, in part, for the high mortality rates on the early convict voyages. If the majority of conspiracies were fictions, dreamed up by convict informants to curry favour with their gaolers (and if junior military officers, naval lieutenants and/or naval surgeons would have been less affected by such fantasies), then the contractual system used for transporting convicts prior to 1815 was inherently flawed. If the legal and administrative framework governing these contracts was incapable of preventing excessively violent and abusive responses to mutinies and conspiracies, then government is to be condemned for relying on a system that was incapable of protecting the prisoners in the passage to Botany Bay.<br />
<br />
This paper explores the security arrangements on board the early convict transports (1787-1801), each of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies and alleged conspiracies that occurred during that period, and the manner in which the ships’ officers responded.<ref name="ftn6"> The mutinies include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), the ''Ann'' (1800) and the ''Hercules'' (1801).<br />
<br />
The conspiracies were on the ''Boddington'' and the ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), the ''Britannia'' (1796), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) and the ''Minerva'' (1798).<br />
<br />
The alleged conspiracies were on the ''Scarborough'' (1787 & 1790), the ''Britannia'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800), and the ''Atlas'' (1801). </ref><br />
<br />
= Managing through Contract =<br />
The overwhelming majority of convicts shipped to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors, and in the first three decades – from 1787 until 1815 – the ships’ officers were responsible for their day-to-day management.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the claims of some historians, the First Fleet was managed under same the arrangements, with the difference that the commodore of the fleet (and Governor-elect of the new settlement), Captain Arthur Phillip, had over-riding authority, and chose to intervene in the management of the prisoners throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn7"> On the misunderstanding, see Robert Hughes, ''The Fatal Shore'', London: Collins Harvill, 1987, pp.144-5, based on Charles Bateson, ''The Convict Ships, 1787-1868'', 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., 1985, pp.10-11, 20. Statements about how the contractual system actually worked are based on a detailed analysis of the documentary record for the First Fleet (1787) and the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789), available from the author.</ref><br />
<br />
In the early years, naval lieutenants usually accompanied some of the ships, as ‘agents for transports’: their experience had traditionally been limited to regulating the loading and navigation of naval transports, and while they were charged with the additional responsibility for monitoring the management of the prisoners, they were not qualified for this role.<ref name="ftn8"> No particular instructions were given to the naval agent on the First Fleet, but the agent who accompanied the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) had responsibility for ‘watching over the proceedings of the contractor and his agents’ and ensuring that ‘proper attention’ was paid to the convicts. (Sydney to the Treasury, 24 April 1789, TNA HO36/6/253-256 & TNA T1/667/398-399, 404; Steele to Stephens, 3 June 1789, TNA T27/40/257)<br />
<br />
The agent on the Second Fleet (1790) was to see that the women were kept separate from the men, and to ensure that they were not abused or ill-treated. He was to visit the ships whenever the weather permitted and to ensure that the prisons were washed and aired, and that the convicts were kept clean and had their clothes changed and washed. He was also to see that justice was done to the prisoners, but his authority extended only to keeping a journal and reporting on the masters’ behaviour upon arrival. (Rose to the Navy Board, 15 August 1789, TNA T1/672/209 & TNA T27/40/344; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)<br />
<br />
On the Third Fleet (1791), the agents were simply to ensure that the charter party was complied with, and to keep a journal. (Navy Board to Lieut. Samuel Blow, 25 January 1791, Alexander Hood, ‘Papers relating to Captain Alexander Hood's command of the ''Hebe'', Channel and Irish Sea: relating to the Convict Transport ''Queen''’, 18 November 1790 to 21 April 1791, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM) MKH/9, MS68/099)<br />
<br />
The instructions for the ''Kitty'' (1793) were similar to those of the Second Fleet. (Warrant issued to Lieut. Daniel Woodriff, 4 January 1793, TNA ADM106/2640)<br />
<br />
No more naval agents were appointed until the ''Earl Cornwallis'' (1800), with authority superintend the care, management and victualling of the convicts. (Transport Board to Hunter, 7 August 1800, TNA ADM108/67/270) This was the last occasion on which they were used.</ref><br />
<br />
Following the high mortality on the Second Fleet, naval surgeons were appointed as ‘surgeon superintendents’ on several of the ships, again responsible for oversight rather than direct management. They enjoyed mixed success, and with the outbreak of war in 1793, naval surgeons could no longer be spared for such duties.<ref name="ftn9"> Surgeon superintendents were appointed to the ''Royal Admiral'' and ''Bellona'' (1792), ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), ''Surprize'' (1794), ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), ''Ganges'' and ''Britannia'' (1796), ''Lady Shore'' (1797) and ''Minerva'' (1799), and then no more until the ''Northampton'' (1814). The ''Boddington'', the ''Sugar Cane'', the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', the ''Britannia'' and the ''Minerva'' all carried Irish convicts, and the Irish government persisted with surgeon superintendents long after the British government had ceased to use them. The status of the surgeon on the ''Ganges'' is unclear: he was going out to take up a position in the colony, and was assigned responsibilities for the convicts as well. The master of the ''Lady Shore'' did not intend to carry his own surgeon, presumably because the women would have the freedom of the deck, and he felt he should not be responsible for the health of the soldiers. The government appointed a surgeon instead.<br />
<br />
No details have survived of the instructions for the surgeon superintendents on the ''Royal Admiral'' and the ''Bellona''. On the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', they were to assist the ships’ surgeons ‘in the necessary attendance on the sick’, and enforce ‘a compliance with the several stipulations made with the contractor. . . for the maintenance & supply of the convicts & guard during their continuance on board’. The masters were contractually bound to obey all orders of the surgeon superintendents for the convicts’ welfare. (Late Draft of the Contract for the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', TNA CO201/7/346-9; ‘<nowiki>Draft [Nepean] to W. Richard Kent’, 12 December 1792, TNA CO201/7/420-422</nowiki>)<br />
<br />
We have no details of the instructions given to the subsequent surgeon superintendents, but it is clear from the inquiry into the floggings on the ''Britannia'', that the surgeon of that ship had not been given clear authority over the master. (F.M. Bladen (ed.), ''Historical Records of New South Wales'', 7 Volumes, Sydney: Government Printer, 1893-1901 (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 3, pp.235, 276-7, 488)</ref> It was not until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 that naval surgeons could once again be used, although it would take several years for them to assume full responsibility for the day-to-day management of the prisoners, and some chose to defer to strong-willed captains.<br />
<br />
Thus, from 1787 until a little after 1815, convicts were managed through a chain of authority cascading down from the Home Office to the Navy Board (and after 1794, the Transport Board), from them to the convict contractors and/or the ship owners, and from owners to masters. These early ships were, in essence, floating prisons, managed under contract, with the contractors’ agents responsible for the health and well-being of the convicts as well as the navigation and management of the vessel.<br />
<br />
= Security on Convict Ships =<br />
Prisoners on board convict ships were not confined as a form of punishment, but in order to prevent mutinies and escapes. This was consistent with 18<sup>th</sup> century notions of imprisonment, where the inmates enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the gaol throughout the day. In Britain, prison inmates were generally not provided with meals by their gaolers, receiving instead a county allowance and purchasing their own provisions. Men were often allowed to associate with the women throughout the day, which helps to explain why so many female convicts came on board the convict ships with a young child or in a state of pregnancy.<ref name="ftn10"> Wayne Joseph Sheehan, ‘The London Prison System, 1666-1795’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975, Chapter 4; Margaret DeLacy, ''Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850'', Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
Convict women were freed from their irons as soon as they were brought on board, and it was only the refractory who were confined throughout the course of the voyage. In many cases (until 1819 at least), they were permitted to form sexual relationships with the ships’ officers and (less often) the crew – there was, as yet, no appreciation that, as long as they occupied the subordinate status of prisoners, the women might not be able to make a truly independent decision in such matters.<br />
<br />
Boys were rarely ironed, sick convicts were usually freed from their shackles, and it was common for 20 or 30 of the more trustworthy men to be given the freedom of the deck to assist in sailing the ship and providing cleaning, cooking and nursing services for their fellow prisoners.<br />
<br />
In these early years, the male convicts were generally kept in single irons – shackles around each ankle connected by a chain – and when the weather permitted, they were allowed on deck for several hours a day for exercise, while the prison was cleaned and fumigated. On smaller ships, the convicts’ quarters were located on the lower deck, and on vessels with three decks, they were assigned to the lowest, known as the orlop deck. In wet weather and high seas, and in extreme cold, there was no alternative but to leave the convicts locked down in their quarters.<br />
<br />
Unruly convicts might be loaded with a second set of irons, referred to as ‘double irons’, and in some cases with ‘heavy irons’. If they were particularly troublesome, they might be confined in shackles joined with a bar iron (as opposed to a chain), a neck brace, handcuffs and/or thumbscrews (the latter designed to disable and not a form of torture as some have assumed), or ‘stapled’ to the deck. In the early years of the Australian transportation system, it was only the First Fleet – for the reasons already mentioned – where the male convicts were freed from their irons throughout the entire voyage.<br />
<br />
Security was usually provided by a small detachment of soldiers. When plans for the Australian transportation system were first being developed, Lord Sydney and his under-secretary, Evan Nepean, imagined that the contractors might provide the necessary guards, but this idea was quickly abandoned when it was realised how many marines would accompany the First Fleet.<ref name="ftn11"> ‘Draught to the Lords of the Treasury’, 18 August 1786, TNA CO201/2/3-10; Steele to Commissioners of the Navy, 26 August 1786, Public Record Office, TNA T27/38/336-337; Navy Board Minutes, 18 October 1786, TNA ADM106/2622.</ref><br />
<br />
There were no soldiers on the next voyage, since the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) carried only female convicts, and when plans were being made for the Second Fleet, the Home Office expected (yet again) that the guards would be provided by the contractors. This proposal was abandoned when shipbrokers made it clear that they would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance (because of a concern among underwriters about the prospect of mutiny).<ref name="ftn12"> Wellbank Sharp & Brown to Navy Board, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/232; Navy Board to Thomas Steele, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/231; Treasury to Navy Board, 29 October 1789, TNA T29/61/73.</ref> Plans to raise a new regiment for service in New South Wales were by then well advanced, and these were expedited so that a small detachment (of 15-20 men) could sail on each of the three convict transports that made up the Second Fleet.<br />
<br />
With the outbreak of war, the government had better things to do with its soldiers than to send them to the far side of the globe, and it became commonplace for half a dozen deserters to be taken out of the Savoy Prison and sent on board the convict transports, where they were handed a uniform and musket.<ref name="ftn13"> Lewis to The Honorable Colonel Fox, Chatham Barracks, 31 December 1792, TNA WO4/845/73.</ref><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, this practice caused deep concern among the masters of the convict transports. These men were often unruly, and the ships’ officers feared that they would conspire with the convicts to take the ship. Soldiers were significant players in two of the five mutinies, at least two and possibly four of the six conspiracies, and at least one of the alleged conspiracies in the ships in the period with which this paper is concerned.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Surprize'' (1794), the deserters were initially placed down among the convicts, and subsequently released and appointed as sentries on the main hatch which led into the prison.<ref name="ftn14"> Lewis to Sir Hew Dalrymple, Chatham Barracks, 13 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/92-3; Lewis to John King, 15 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/93; Campbell to the Navy Board, 17 February 1794, TNA T1/728/198-199 & HO35/14; Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797, pp.16-17.</ref> The 74 soldiers on the ''Lady Shore'' were not there to provide security since the ship was carrying female convicts and only two men. But they did include a number of French prisoners of war (who had claimed that they were royalists), some Irish recruits (always regarded as suspect) and several deserters brought directly from the Savoy.<ref name="ftn15"> ‘Return of a Detachment of the New South Wales Corps, embarked at Gravesend on board the Lady Shore, under the Command of Ensign Minchin, 27<sup>th</sup> March 1797’, based on remarks made by Corporal John Spice, TNA WO40/16/60; Statement of Simon Murchison, 21 January 1798, TNA ADM108/19/144 & HO42/44/90a; </ref><br />
<br />
Following the mutiny on that ship, the contractors and ship owners were reluctant to have a military detachment on board, and for several years some of the masters were paid to provide their own security. However, this practice had ceased by 1803, and thereafter soldiers were always employed.<ref name="ftn16"> There were no soldiers on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Ann'' (1800) or the ''Perseus'' and ''Coromandel'' (1802). The use of contracted guards seems to have ended with the ''Rolla'' (1802) – Minutes of the Transport Board, 14 December 1801, TNA ADM108/70/334.</ref><br />
<br />
Contrary to what has often been assumed, the soldiers were not responsible for managing the convicts day-to-day, and they had no say over when the convicts were allowed on deck, what chains they wore, and whether they would be punished. Until sometime after 1815, it was the ships’ officers, and particularly the master and the surgeon, who were responsible for these matters.<br />
<br />
The First Fleet was somewhat different. Phillip gave a great deal of authority to the naval surgeons and assistant surgeons who were accompanying him out to live in the settlement, assigning one to each of the transports carrying the largest numbers of male convicts. He also instructed the marine officers to work in collaboration with the ships’ masters in making decisions about the convicts’ security, and we can find a number of examples of this happening throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn17"> John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales'', Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.70-71; Stephens to Smith, 24 February 1787, TNA ADM2/1178/151; Stephens to Collins, 2 March 1787, National Marines Museum, Portsmouth (hereafter NMaM) Arch11/52/2, p.166.</ref><br />
<br />
When the NSW Corps joined the Second Fleet, the senior officers attempted to take control of convict security, imitating what they (wrongly) believed to have been the situation on the First Fleet. This resulted in considerable tension between the ships’ officers and the officers of the NSW Corps, which was quickly resolved in favour of the former. The principal reason for this was that the contractors and ships’ captains had provided a financial bond of £40 for each convict, guaranteeing that they would be delivered to their specified destination, but the Navy Board also recognised that at the end of the day, the responsibility for the security of the ship must lie with the master.<ref name="ftn18"> Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268; Shapcote to Navy Board, Minute of 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/266; Shapcote to Navy Board, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/267; Navy Board Minutes 23 November 1789, NA ADM106/2631; Note on reverse of Hill to Barnard, 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/259a; Navy Board to Shapcote, 23 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/267; Navy Board to Treasury, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/264; Treasury Minutes, 25 November 1789, TNA T29/61/207. There appears to be no documentary record of the instructions from the War Office to Grose and Hill; John Harris, ‘Paper Delivered by the Surgeon’s Mate of the New South Wales Corps contain<sup>g</sup> the proceed<sup>gs</sup> of Mr Gilbert’, 4 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/404-407.<br />
<br />
Gareth Cole, ‘Who Has Command? The Royal Artillerymen aboard Royal Navy Warships in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars’, and Britt Zerbe, ‘The Marine Officer is a Raw Lad, and therefore Troublesome: Royal Naval Officers and the Officers of the Marines, 1755-1797’, in Helen Doe and Richard Harding (eds.), ''Naval Leadership and Management, 1660-1950'', Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2012, pp.61-76, 77-92</ref><br />
<br />
= Legal Authority on Convict Ships =<br />
The captain’s authority over the convicts arose from the Common Law governing relations between masters and servants. This was also the foundation of the master’s authority over his crew, whom he was legally entitled to chastise physically for the security and wellbeing of the ship.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ship’s company, this arose out of the contract of employment created when the articles of agreement were signed by the crew shortly after coming on board. In the case of the convicts, the master-servant relationship arose from a legal instrument known as the contract of effectual transportation, signed by city and county gaolers and the convict contractors and ships’ masters when the convicts were brought on board. This transferred legal property in the convicts’ service to the master for the duration of the voyage, so that, in law, they were his servants until their arrival in New South Wales.<br />
<br />
Under the law of master and servant, chastisement had to be proportionate. It must be inflicted for sufficient cause; it could not be visited with undue severity. It could be inflicted for past offences, or to promote good discipline on board the ship. It was for this reason that punishment for theft and insolence on most convict transports was usually limited to confinement and a flogging of a dozen or two dozen lashes.<ref name="ftn19"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.125-127, 394-397; Francis Ludlow Holt, ''A System of the Shipping and Navigation Laws of Great Britain'', London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1824 (hereafter Holt), p.260; Richard Henry Dana, ''The Seamen’s Friend'', 4<sup>th</sup> edition, Boston: Thomas Groom and Company, 1845, pp.192-193.</ref><br />
<br />
Mutinies were quite a different matter. The ships’ officers were entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves and ensure the safety of the ship, and if this resulted in the death of a mutineer, they were protected by the privilege of self-defence. Where possible, offenders should be secured so they could be brought before an appropriate tribunal, but the justification of self-defence extended to the execution and the severe flogging of mutineers, if a conference of the ships’ officers concluded that this was necessary for the safety of the ship.<ref name="ftn20"> Abbott, op. cit., pp.127-128; Holt, op. cit., p.261; Richard Henry Dana, op. cit., pp.193-4; Richard Henry Dana, ‘Two Years Before the Mast’, in Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ''Two Years Before the Mast & Other Voyages'', New York: The Library of America, 2005, p.348.</ref><br />
<br />
Comparisons have sometimes been made between the convict trade and the slave trade, but convict transportation was closely regulated by law. No prisoner could be moved from a county gaol to a convict transport or from ship to shore, without appropriate paperwork. When, in November 1786, a young prisoner from Norwich named Susannah Holmes was brought onto the ''Dunkirk'', a convict hulk at Plymouth where she was to be held awaiting the arrival of the First Fleet transports, the captain refused to allow her ten-month old son on board. This was not because of heartless indifference, but because there were no official papers authorising him to receive the child into his establishment. It was only when the Norwich gaoler obtained a written instruction from the Home Secretary that mother and child could be reunited.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Morning Post & Daily Advertiser'', 4 December 1786.</ref><br />
<br />
In English law, a convict was a ‘freeman’ not a slave, and when the matter was eventually dealt with in an insurance case, the courts utterly rejected the suggestion that the prisoners could classified as part of the ships’ cargo.<ref name="ftn22"> The reference to a convict being a ‘freeman’ is from the judgement of Mr Justice Park in an insurance case ''Brown v Stapylton'', Court of Common Pleas, Easter Term 1827, 4 Bingham 119. Park acknowledged that a claim could be made on the life of a slave thrown overboard, a reference to the ''Zong'', but was firm in relation to convicts, he wrote ‘the authorities are clear, that there can be no estimation of the life of a freeman’.</ref> By contrast, in the Africa trade, the slaves regarded in law as a form of property who could be bought and sold, and whose lives could be insured in case of their deaths in the course of a mutiny.<br />
<br />
Following his decision in the infamous case of the ''Zong'', where the ship owners claimed the insurance on slaves deliberately thrown overboard because of an alleged fear that the ship would be lost due to a lack of water and provisions, Lord Mansfield observed:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>. . . if they [the slaves] die a Natural Death they [the underwriters] do not pay but in an Engagement [that is, a mutiny] if they are attacked and the Slaves are killed, they will be paid for them as much as for damages done for goods, and it is frequently done, just as if Horses were killed, they are paid for in the Gross, just as well as for Horses killed, but you don’t pay for Horses that die a Natural death.</nowiki><ref name="ftn23"> This statement is from the records of the Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, and does not appear elsewhere, but it certainly reflects Mansfield’s understanding of the law – see James Oldham, ‘Insurance Litigation Involving the Zong and Other British Slave Ships, 1780-1807’, ''The Journal of Legal History'', (2007) 28:3, pp.299-308 at p.316.</ref><br />
<br />
There was never any suggestion that convicts occupied the status of livestock and there was no question of them being insured as cargo.<br />
<br />
Nor was there any of the cold-blooded murder and mass rape that occurred on Stalin’s convict ships as they carried political and criminal exiles to Siberia between 1932 and 1953. One searches in vain for a single allegation of rape on board the ships that carried British and Irish convicts to Australia between 1787 and 1801 (the focus of this paper).<ref name="ftn24"> Martin J. Bollinger, ''Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West'', Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
This would mean little if the convicts lacked any means of responding to abuse, but from the First Fleet onwards, prisoners could sue the ships’ officers for loss of property, and it was not unusual for complaints about mistreatment to make their way to the Home Secretary (prior to sailing) or the Governor of the colony (upon arrival), and for formal investigations to be launched. By the end of the first decade, convicts were routinely mustered upon their arrival in Sydney Cove and asked whether they had any complaints about their gaolers.<ref name="ftn25"> The first civil court case in Australian history involved two of the convicts, a husband and wife, successfully suing one of the ships’ captains for the theft of their property – Log of the ''Alexander'', 5 April 1788, TNA ADM51/4375; NSW Court of Civil Jurisdiction: Case Papers and Minutes of Proceedings, 1788-1809, 2 July 1788, in SANSW 2/8147; Bruce Kercher and Brent Salter (eds), ''The Kercher Reports'', Sydney: The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History, 2009, pp.15-20; Henry and Susanna Cable to Mrs Dinah Cable, 17 November 1788, copy sent to the Keeper of Norfolk Castle, published in ''Norfolk Chronicle'', 18 July 1789, pp.2-3; Johnson to Nepean, 12 July 1798, in George Mackaness (ed), ‘Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson’, Part II, Australian Historical Monographs, Volume XX (New Series), No.5; John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales''<nowiki> [1790], Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.148-149. For legal commentary on the case, including the suspension of felony attaint, see David Neal, </nowiki>''The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.1-8.<br />
<br />
From the First Fleet onwards, there are numerous examples of a convict complaint making its way to the Home Secretary or the Governor, followed by an investigation. On the First Fleet, see the example of Elizabeth Barber – Paul G. Fidlon, et al (eds.), ''The Journals and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark, 1787-1792'', Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1981, p.35. Some of the convicts on the Second Fleet lodged complaints before sailing about their irons – Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10<sup>th</sup> and 26<sup>th</sup> March 1792, ''House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century'', (83) 1791-92, (hereafter ‘Accounts and Papers’) pp.259-368, at p.334.<br />
<br />
The first formal mention of a muster relates to the ''Britannia'' (1796) – ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ship ''Britannia'' from the Downs to Port Jackson and China, Commencing upon the 3<sup>rd</sup> of September 1796 & Ending upon the 30<sup>th</sup> of June 1798’ (hereafter Journal of the ''Britannia''), Dixson Library, SLNSW MSQ35, 30 May 1797. However, it is not clear that it was formalised at that time. The practice was certainly routine by the ''Minerva'' (1799) – Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), p.144.</ref><br />
<br />
When it came to mutiny, these protections were imperfect since public officials and judicial officers were reluctant to second-guess decisions made on an isolated ship in the middle of the Atlantic, but as we shall see, the legal and administrative oversight of convict ships generally served to constrain excessively abusive conduct.<br />
<br />
= Mutinies and Conspiracies =<br />
Fourteen of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies or alleged conspiracies in the period 1787 to 1801 took place or were intended to take place in the first month after sailing, the intention being to take the ship to France or North America.<ref name="ftn26"> For one of the mutinies we have no details.</ref> The only successful mutiny, that of the ''Lady Shore'', occurred seven weeks after sailing and the soldiers took the ship into La Plata, a Spanish port (in what is now Argentina). This was a risky course of action, and the Spanish authorities were at first uncertain how to treat the mutineers.<ref name="ftn27"> John Black, ''An Authentic Narrative of the Mutiny on Board the Ship Lady Shore'', Ipswich, 1798, pp.34-5.</ref> It followed that once the convict transports had entered the South Atlantic, they were generally free from any serious threat of mutiny.<br />
<br />
Among the mutinies and the conspiracies that reached an advanced stage of planning, there were two broad strategies – to attack the sentries when the convicts were on deck for exercise (by far the most common) and/or to take one of the ship’s senior officers, preferably the captain, hostage while there were inspecting the prison, and then to negotiate.<br />
<br />
There was understandable fear of an uprising among the hardened political rebels which some of these ships were carrying, and this fear was not unjustified. Of the 18 voyages where the convicts were involved, nine involved Irish convicts: the ratio of transports carrying Irish convicts in this period was only around 25 percent. Of the five actual mutinies, three involved Irish convicts, and the uprising on the ''Lady Shore'' included Irish soldiers (although it was not led by them). Four of the six proven conspiracies were also planned by Irish political prisoners. So to a considerable extent, this was an Irish problem.<br />
<br />
Soldiers played some part in two of the five mutinies and two of the six conspiracies, although they were thought to have been involved in at least two of the other conspiracies. Crew members were involved in at least three of the mutinies and conspiracies, and there were concerns of them possibly playing a role in four others. Women convicts were potentially important because they had the freedom of the deck; they were thought to have been involved in two cases, and there were suspicions of them playing a role in two more.<br />
<br />
== Mutinies ==<br />
Among the convict mutinies, the pattern was broadly similar to that of the ''Albemarle'', one of the convict transports in the Third Fleet (1791) and the first ship to experience a convict uprising. She was 13 days out of Portsmouth, and had been separated by storm from the other ships in her division. There was no advance warning. A number of convicts had been allowed on deck for exercise in the morning, at a time when most of the watch were aloft. Several of the prisoners rushed the sentries, seizing their weapons and were charging the helmsman when the captain – who happened to be on deck at the time – slipped into his cabin, grabbed his blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders in the shoulder. This caused the mutineers to abandon their attack and retreat below.<br />
<br />
All hands were called on deck, the small arms were issued, and a search party was sent below. They returned with three of the ringleaders, the first of whom confessed, probably under the threat of hanging, and named the other two as the principals, one of whom was the man that had been wounded in the affray. A conference was convened between the naval agent, the captain, the ship’s officers and men, and the soldiers, and (as the captain later wrote):<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm; this had the desired effect upon the convicts in general, who immediately sent us a letter confessing all their horrid intentions, and of taking the ship to America.<ref name="ftn28"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
Two other prisoners seem to have died as a result of their injuries. Another two were given two dozen lashes, and the informant was given three dozen, a remarkably mild response to a mutiny, where some of the ship’s officers might well have lost their lives. Two of the crew who had passed knives to the convicts (probably for cutting through their shackles), and otherwise assisted, were placed in irons and delivered to British authorities at Madeira.<ref name="ftn29"> On the convicts who seem to have died from their wounds – Extract of a Letter from Lieutenant Young, 24 April 1791, TNA T1/694/208. On the floggings and the crew members – Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the notable exception that the participants were not Irish, the insurrection on the ''Albemarle'' was typical of a convict mutiny – a sudden attack on the sentries while the prisoners were on deck for exercise, assistance from some of the crew or the guard, a successful counter-attack led by the captain and crew rather than the soldiers, confessions extracted through flogging or the threat of something worse, a formal conference of the ship’s officers and crew, a unanimous decision that prompt action must be taken for the safety of the ship, the execution of one or two mutineers, followed by a relatively moderate amount of flogging and closer confinement.<br />
<br />
== Conspiracies ==<br />
Planned mutinies that were discovered before an attack was launched were usually exposed by prisoners who were in some sense outsiders (gentleman convicts, or in one case, a Jewish prisoner), or by men who had the confidence of the ship’s officers (convicts who had been freed from their chains to work about the ship, and/or were regular informants). It might be regarded as strange that ‘trusties’ or informants would be approached by the conspirators, but it was valuable, if at all possible, to have the assistance of someone – soldier, crew member, female convict or trustie – who had the freedom of the deck. <br />
<br />
There is much less uniformity in the pattern of the conspiracies, since the details were pieced together from informants’ accounts and whatever could be ascertained through flogging the alleged conspirators. In either case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there was some measure of lies or fantasy, although in the cases described here as conspiracies, there was physical evidence of the intention to mutiny – in most cases, a significant number of cut irons or the accumulation of cutting implements. If the ship were in port, that would indicate an intent to escape, but if they were at sea, then the removal of their irons, or the accumulation of a significant number of knives and other metal objects, could only mean an intention to mutiny.<br />
<br />
The ''Barwell'' (1797) was carrying English convicts, but the conspiracy seems to have emerged among the soldiers, some of whom had been riotous since coming on board. Two of the guards (at least one of whom was Irish) had been court-martialled and sent ashore, and the sergeant of the guard had run from the ship before sailing with several of the crew. The naval agent at Portsmouth had reported to his superiors: ‘The ''Barwell''’s officers consider the guard as worthless, and as little deserving of trust as the convicts!’<ref name="ftn30"> Patton to the Transport Board, 24 October 1797, TNA ADM108/49/395.</ref><br />
<br />
Four and a half months into the voyage, two of the convicts reported that several of the soldiers had approached them about launching a mutiny. The muskets had been loaded, and they would be handed over to the convicts once they had commenced the attack. A search was conducted and a number of convicts were found to be out of irons, and the bulkhead (which functioned as the bars to the prison) had been tampered with.<br />
<br />
Following a consultation among the ship’s officers, somewhere around two dozen of the convicts were flogged, most with two or three dozen lashes, although the ringleaders were given six, eight and ten dozen. By the standards of the day (and in comparison with the punishments handed out to mutinous soldiers or marines), this was not especially severe. Three of the soldiers were flogged – several dozen lashes – and confined among the prisoners. There was also evidence against one of the two Ensigns – the most high-ranking of the soldiers on board – but it was not unequivocal, and he was confined to his quarters for the rest of the voyage.<ref name="ftn31"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37; ''R v George Bond'', Court of Vice Admiralty, Letters of Marque and Related Documents, Registrar of the Court, 1795-1812, 20 August 1798, TNA HCA1/64 & SRNSW, 5/1163, p.91ff.</ref><br />
<br />
== 5.3 Alleged Conspiracies ==<br />
With the eight alleged conspiracies, the ships’ officers were relying entirely on what they had been told by convict informants and what could be extracted from confessions obtained through flogging or the threat of the same. It was these cases that Hunter and Bigge had in mind when they wrote of false alarms and the groundless fear of combinations, although there were fewer of them than there were actual mutinies and proven conspiracies.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for us to know today, if it was then, which of these supposed conspiracies were real and which were not. Most of the actual conspiracies were first revealed to the ships’ officers in exactly the same way as the ones for which we have little or no external evidence.<br />
<br />
In several cases, there is evidence that the informants were expecting favourable treatment as a result, but given that they were placing their lives in jeopardy by informing on their fellow-prisoners, this is perhaps not surprising. And on several occasions, the alleged conspirators claimed that the master had deliberately suborned witnesses, through offers of payment or other favours, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Then as now, it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of these stories.<ref name="ftn32"> Allegations were made of witnesses suborned or threatened in cases involving the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Barwell'' (1797), and the ''Minerva'' (1798).</ref><br />
<br />
What is clear, is that the ships’ officers were terrified of a convict mutiny. In almost all cases, the alleged plot involved the immediate execution of the ship’s officers, and the fate of Captain Willcocks and his chief mate (on the ''Lady Shore'') seems to confirm that their lives were at risk, particularly when (as was almost always the case) they took the lead in resisting an attack.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning of the Australian transportation system, there was good reason to suspect that the convicts would take the ship if they could. Of the last three ships sent to North America (in 1784, in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence), two had been successfully taken by the convicts.<ref name="ftn33"> Regarding the mutiny on the ''Swift'' and the ''Mercury'' (1784), see Emma Christopher, ''A Merciless Place'', Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010, Chapter 12.</ref> And in the spring and summer of 1786, in the months before the First Fleet was commissioned, there had been two serious insurrections on the hulks, resulting in a number of deaths.<ref name="ftn34"> ‘Report of all the Convicts. . . on board the ''Fortunee'' Hulk. . . from the 20<sup>th</sup> February to 26<sup>th</sup> May 1786’, TNA T1/638; ‘Report of Convicts under Sentence of Transportation. . ., on board the ''Censor'' Hulk. . . from the 12<sup>th</sup> April to the 12<sup>th</sup> July 1786’, TNA T1/634.</ref><br />
<br />
These fears were periodically reinforced by reports of conspiracies on the smaller vessels that carried the convicts from the outer regions of Britain and Ireland to their port of embarkation. In 1789, there was a plot to take the ''Peggy'', a small vessel bringing down some prisoners from Scotland, revealed by a convict informant, Thomas Watling, who would go on to become a prominent artist in the colony.<ref name="ftn35"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 11 & 13 June 1789.</ref> The following year, there was an insurrection on a sloop carrying convicts from Lancaster to Portsmouth, which required the intervention of the navy before it was finally put down.<ref name="ftn36"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 1 February 1790, p.2.</ref> There was another conspiracy on one of the convict ships in Ireland in 1796, again revealed by one of the prisoners.<ref name="ftn37"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796</ref><br />
<br />
And of course, the taking of the ''Lady Shore'' and the murder of Captain Willcox received significant attention in the British press in May 1798 when the news of the mutiny first arrived home, and again in late 1799 when one of the mutineers who had been captured was tried and executed.<ref name="ftn38"> ''Mirror of the Times'', 23 November 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25 November 1799; ''General Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Whitehall Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 27 November 1799; ''Times'', 27 November 1799, p.3; ''Observer'', 1 December 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 4 December 1799; ''Times'', 5 December 1799, p.3; ''Morning Herald'', 5 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 20 December 1799; ''Times'', 21 December 1799, p.3; ''Oracle & Daily Advertiser'', 21 December 1799; ''Naval Chronicle'' II, July to Dec 1799, pp.629-630; ''St James’s Chronicle or British Evening Post'', 21-24 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23-25 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'' & ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25-27 December 1799.</ref><br />
<br />
As already noted, these fears were heightened when there were Irish convicts on board, particularly political insurrectionists, many of whom were hardened by civil war and what would now be regarded as terrorist activities. Joseph Holt, an Irish rebel leader who sailed with his family on the ''Minerva'' (1799), and enjoyed the freedom of the deck, told the chief mate that he was a fool to have thought of trusting him with a gun when the ship being chased by a privateer: given half a chance, he said, he would have turned it on the poop deck and freed as many of the convicts as he could.<ref name="ftn39"> T. Crofton Croker (ed.), ''Memoirs of Joseph Holt'', London: Henry Colburn, 1838, Vol. 1, pp.47-52.</ref><br />
<br />
Similar concerns were held whenever there were republicans on board. Rumours of conspiracy followed the so-called Scottish Martyrs – gentlemen exiles rather than convicts – who were sent out to New South Wales on the ''Surprize'' (1794). And while the claims that they were at the heart of conspiracies on board that ship were probably unfounded, there is no doubt that these men had been deliberately provocative in stirring up republican sentiments among the officers and passengers, and in forming improper relationships with some of the prisoners.<br />
<br />
Those ships that sailed in the immediate aftermath of the extensive naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore in 1797, the ''Lady Shore'' among them, had additional reasons to be concerned. The sailors on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) refused to sail unless a prisoner named Thomas McCann was removed from the ship. McCann had been a sailor on the ''Sandwich'' and had originally been sentenced to death for his part in the Nore mutiny. Since coming on board, he had been organising protests among the convicts over the state of their provisions, and the crew were concerned that he would lead a mutiny. Even though he was removed from the ship, his influence persisted, with the convicts continuing to organise protests when they felt that they were not being given their full rations.<ref name="ftn40">= William Noah, Voyage to Sydney in the Ship Hillsborough 1798-1799. . ., Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1978, p.19; G.E. Manwaring and Bonamy Dobree, The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and the Nore in 1797, Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2004, p.277. =<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
So while we cannot be certain which of these alleged conspiracies were real, there were often good reasons for the ships’ officers to be concerned. Hunter’s and Bigge’s criticisms need to be read with some scepticism.<br />
<br />
= Responding to a Convict Mutiny =<br />
== Suppressing the Insurrection ==<br />
The initial response to a convict mutiny was usually led by the ship’s officers and not by the military guard. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was Captain George Bowen who seized a blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders, causing the mutineers to retreat. With the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the search of the convicts’ quarters for weapons was led by the Captain, Michael Hogan, and then an attack on the prison shortly thereafter when the conspirators attempted to break out. In the case of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), it was Captain John Willcocks and his first mate who immediately responded, while (according to one report) the ranking military officer was hiding under his bed.<ref name="ftn41"> On the ''Albemarle'' (1791) – George Bowen, ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292 & HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488; Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a; Account of Robert Cock, TNA CO201/6/294-295 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-9.<br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis ''(1795) – Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.<br />
<br />
On the ''Lady Shore'' (1797) – J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, p.195</ref><br />
<br />
Captain James Stewart of the ''Ann'' (1800) was undertaking his regular inspection of the convicts’ quarters when he was seized by some of the prisoners, as part of a coordinated plan to take the ship. He escaped with the assistance of several other convicts, and while the details are scant, he was part of the group that rescued his mate and the gunner. On the ''Hercules'' (1801), Captain Luckyn Betts was the first man out of the cabin to confront the mutineers who had charged the quarter deck, and had a blunderbuss snapped in his face. (It misfired.)<ref name="ftn42"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
The affray rarely lasted long. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was a matter of seconds; on the ''Hercules'' (1801), it seems to have lasted about 15 minutes. However, there was often a period of some uncertainty before the security of the ship was fully restored. Having quelled the insurrection, the ship’s officers would search the prison, and bring up those who were suspected of being involved. They would also inspect the prisoners’ irons, to ascertain whether they had been cut. Metal implements, particularly knives, were used for sawing through the iron, and the convicts would disguise their efforts by filling the furrows with coloured wax.<br />
<br />
== Investigating Rumours ==<br />
Where the ship’s officers were informed of the conspiracy by one of the convicts, the master would sometimes wait for better evidence. On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), two of the prisoners passed a message to Captain Hogan, who had them brought aft for questioning. They revealed that the sergeant of the guard had offered to provide them with knives in return for payment. Hogan asked the ranking officer, an ensign, to have the troops fall in with their kits, which were searched. Sergeant Ellis was found to have six knives in his bag, and the ensign revealed that several days before, the sergeant had lied to him about having lost four of these knives, and he had given him two more. The touch-holes of six firelocks had also been spiked, and two pistols sent to Ellis for cleaning had been disabled. A search was conducted of the prison, but it appears that nothing of significance was found. Hogan decided to wait for stronger evidence. He cautioned his mates and the petty officers, along with some of the seamen whom he particularly trusted, to watch for any sudden attack, and he later wrote that he was keeping a strict eye on the conduct of the soldiers. It was only when he obtained further evidence from another source that Hogan began a formal interrogation of the suspects.<ref name="ftn43"> TNA CO201/13/146; HRNSW Vol.3, p.110.</ref><br />
<br />
Captain William Hingston, master of the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), reacted in a similar way. He was cautious about the information he had been supplied by a convict informant, and after arming the crew, set a trap designed to encourage the mutineers to show their hand.<ref name="ftn44"> Ebenezer Beriah Kelly, ''Autobiography'', Norwich: John W. Stedman, 1856, pp.17-19.</ref> Much the same appears to have happened on the ''Minerva'' (1799), where a number of stories were passed to the captain before any action was taken. Still uncertain as to the seriousness of the plot, the ship’s officers revolved to lock the supposed ringleaders in a strong room rather than flogging them to extract confessions. More specific stories emerged later in the voyage, when stronger action was taken.<ref name="ftn45"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), pp.83-84, 88-89.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) one of the passengers, a junior official going out to take up a post at New South Wales, reported rumours from among the convicts. Captain William Wilson reacted in a measured way and tightened security.<ref name="ftn46"> For example, Wilson had a barricade constructed across the deck, and allowed the passengers to organise their own watch – Journal of the ''Royal Admiral'', IOR L/MAR/B/338-I and ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 20 & 23 June 1800.</ref> On the ''Hercules'' (1801), where there was later a violent insurrection, the master made no response when the first stories emerged.<ref name="ftn47"> See the evidence of Thomas Trotter, Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court, 6 July 1802, CO201/21/245-246.</ref> The master of the ''Atlas'' (1801), which sailed at the same time as the ''Hercules'', suspected that the convicts had poisoned the guard, a highly improbable scenario. Captain Richard Brooks was jumping at shadows, but he investigated the supposed conspiracy over several weeks, trying to make sense of the limited evidence available to him, all the time allowing the convicts on deck (carefully chained) for daily exercise.<ref name="ftn48"> Journal of the ''Atlas'', IOR L/MAR/B/27E, various entries from 27 February to 11 April 1802.</ref><br />
<br />
It was common for the ships’ officers to flog the convicts in order to extract a confession, and punishment would often cease once a prisoner had admitted his role and implicated others. An officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) explained to this brother that following the revelation of the conspiracy: ‘We got upon deck the ringleaders, to the number of forty, who, after a severe punishment, confessed the whole.’<ref name="ftn49"> Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.</ref> Captain Hogan wrote: ‘When each man received punishment, he gave information against others, evading as much as possible the part he had in it himself. . .’<ref name="ftn50"> TNA CO201/13/150a; HRNSW Vol.3, p.109.</ref><br />
<br />
A British official at Madeira wrote about the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) when the ship called there briefly to offload the two sailors suspected of being involved. He reported that when the first of the ringleaders was brought on deck, he was threatened with immediate hanging: ‘he, from terror, declared that if they would pardon him he would discover the whole plot, which he accordingly did’. He named another two men as the ringleaders, one of whom had been wounded in the affray.<ref name="ftn51"> Robert Cock to the Duke of Leeds, 13 May 1791, TNA CO201/6/294-295; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-449.</ref><br />
<br />
The probative value of evidence extracted through flogging or the threat of hanging, is of course highly questionable, and such practices had ceased to be employed in the British criminal justice system. The author has been unable to find any precedents for this extraordinary practice on board these merchant ships, which was not challenged by any of the authorities at the time.<br />
<br />
== The Ship’s Council ==<br />
There appears to have been a convention that masters would convene a conference of the ship’s officers, and ideally, the passengers and crew members as well, before making any firm decisions about the response to a mutiny, particularly when a decision involved the execution of one of the mutineers. There also seems to have been a practice of including a relatively senior officer from another ship, if one was in company, or that individuals independent of the ship’s officers would be involved.<br />
<br />
There was no legal obligation in English maritime law to consult with the ship’s officers before disciplining the crew, but according to Abbott (1802):<br />
<br />
. . . the master should, except in cases requiring his immediate interposition, take the advice of the persons next below him in authority, as well as to prevent the operation of passion in his own breast, as to secure witnesses to the propriety of his conduct. For the master on his return to this country may be called upon by action at law, to answer to a mariner, who has been beaten or imprisoned by him, or by his order, in the course of a voyage; and for the justification of his conduct, he should be able to shew not only that there was a sufficient cause for chastisement, but also that the chastisement itself was reasonable and moderate, otherwise the mariner may recover damages proportionate to the injury received.<ref name="ftn52"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.126-127.</ref><br />
<br />
The masters of East Indiamen were expected to bring an offender before a ‘consultation’ of officers prior to issuing any punishments, and there appears to have been a widespread convention that British seafarers would not be discharged in foreign ports without formal consultation.<ref name="ftn53"> On the former, see Peter Earle, ''Sailors: English Merchant Seamen, 1650-1775'', London: Methuen, 2007, p.154.</ref> The first known example of this is the Strange fur-trading expedition to the north-west coast of America in 1785-86 (in the ''Captain Cook'' and the ''Experiment'') where the owners, David Scott & Co of Bombay, wanted a council of the officers to be held if unruly men were to be put ashore at a foreign port:<br />
<br />
. . . & as You have not the aid of martial Law, we have to desire Your discharging every officer and man that may show the least tendency to subvert discipline, at the first English Port or at China. In such case we would advise Your holding a Council of the Officers, & entering their report on the Log Book; as we feel an interest in every man who embarks on the expedition, it would be pleasing to see that no person was discharged but in consequence of the voices of the Officers.<ref name="ftn54"> David Scott & Co, ‘Sailing Directions to James Strange Esq., Director of the Exploring Expedition to the No. West Coast of America and towards the North Pole’, 7 December 1785, in ''Records of Fort St. George: James Strange’s Journal and Narrative of the Commercial Expedition from Bombay to the Northwest Coast of America'', Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1982, p.35. </ref><br />
<br />
And legislation passed in 1799 for the further regulation of the slave trade, prescribed that the masters of ships engaged in that trade were not to discharge unruly mariners without first consulting with one of His Majesty’s ships of war.<ref name="ftn55"> Abbott, pp.128-129.</ref><br />
<br />
While there was no comparable body of law or practice relating to the transportation of convicts, it is clear that most of the masters acknowledged the convention that they should consult with their officers, at least when exemplary punishments were required following a mutiny. What is perhaps of greater interest, is that over time, this formalised into a legal obligation.<br />
<br />
As previously noted, there was no legal authority to try and punish mutineers, be they crew members, passengers, soldiers or convicts; any execution, flogging or confinement had to be undertaken as an act of self-defence. It is for this reason that most accounts of these ships’ conferences explicitly state that they executed the prisoner for the preservation of the ship and her crew. It was also conventional to report that such decisions were unanimous.<ref name="ftn56"> Examples include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Minerva'' (1798), and the ''Ann'' (1800).</ref><br />
<br />
Thus, on the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the master convened a conference that included the naval agent (a naval lieutenant assigned to the convoy for monitoring the navigation), the ship’s officers and crew, and the soldiers. The naval agent specifically noted in his account that there were no other ships in company to hold a formal trial. According to the captain:<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm. . .<ref name="ftn57"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the First Mate wrote:<br />
<br />
It was therefore agreed unanimously, by all the free persons on board, that the ringleaders should be punished with severity, which was put into execution. . . Had these steps not been taken the ship could never have been secure, as it evidently appeared the convicts, headed by the serjeant, had bound themselves by oath to murder the captain and the principal officers.<ref name="ftn58"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.107-108.</ref><br />
<br />
While we lack a detailed account of several ships, there appear to have been ship’s conferences on all of the vessels where mutinies or conspiracies occurred, except three. One of these was the ''Lady Shore'', where the mutiny was successful, but in the other two cases – the ''Britannia'' (1796), the master was strongly censured and on the ''Hercules'' (1801), found guilty of manslaughter for the failure to consult. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the alleged conspiracies, since in some cases, the reaction was mild, but we know of ship’s councils in two of the eight cases.<br />
<br />
It was usual for there to be a judicial inquiry when these ships arrived in Sydney, particularly where men had died, where there had been a significant amount of flogging, and/or where there was a formal protest by one of the convicts or military officers. As long as there had been a conference and unanimity, it was rare to second-guess the decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of the mutiny or conspiracy. However, it was also rare for the authorities in Sydney to impose further punishment on the conspirators, even where the ship’s officers had deferred making a decision until their arrival.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Britannia'' (1796), there had been extensive flogging and some of those punished had subsequently died. A judicial inquiry was held and, as the Judge Advocate reported in his journal: <br />
<br />
As these punishments had been inflicted by the direction of the master, without consulting any of the officers on board as to the measure of them he was highly censured. . .<ref name="ftn59"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates. . . Charges Imputed to Captain Dennett’, 13 June 1797, TNA CO201/14/31ff; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board the ''Britannia'', 5/1156, No.13, Reel 1929 or COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
The second case was that of the ''Hercules'' (1801), where Captain Betts was prosecuted in the Court of Vice Admiralty, for the deaths of 12 or 13 convicts in the course of the insurrection, and for executing one of the ringleaders in the immediate aftermath. He was cleared of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of the mutiny – indeed, very little evidence was taken in relation to this charge, so it appears that the court did not regard it as a matter requiring serious attention.<br />
<br />
However, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter on the second charge and fined £500, a substantial sum of money. Based on the evidence at the trial, it seems likely that all of the officers agreed with his course of action, but he had failed to conduct a formal consultation; and the execution had possibly occurred an hour after the mutiny was over (although there was conflicting evidence on this point). The sentence was suspended for confirmation by the Home Secretary, and the ultimate outcome is unknown.<ref name="ftn60"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254.</ref><br />
<br />
== Punishment ==<br />
While the execution, flogging and/or confinement of mutineers were strictly-speaking not punishments, but rather acts of self-defence necessary to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew, contemporaries were not always careful in making this distinction.<br />
<br />
=== Executions ===<br />
<br />
There were executions on four of the 11 ships where an actual mutiny or conspiracy was involved. Two of the ringleaders of the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) were hung at the fore-yard arm following a ship’s council. Lieutenant Robert Parry Young, the naval agent, was clearly uncomfortable with the decision, writing to the Admiralty that it was for the general good and the safety of the ship: ‘I had no authority for so doing but the moment required a severe example’ and he hoped their Lordships would support him if there were any bad consequences. ‘It was with difficulty I could prevent the ship’s company from executing more of them from revenge, for had the convicts not been repulsed, the massacre would have been considerable on our part.’<ref name="ftn61"> Young to Stephens, 24 April 1791, TNA HO28/8/99-100a; TNA T1/694; TNA ADM106/2638, 7 July 1791; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-8.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the principals was shot in the presence of all the convicts, who had been assembled on deck for the purpose. Captain Betts shot one of the ringleaders on the ''Hercules'' (1801), not so much as a considered act designed to suppress any further intentions of mutiny, but on an adrenalin high, egged on by the other officers on the quarter deck.<ref name="ftn62"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
We have few details of what transpired on the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), but the decision was taken by the naval agent, following what was described as ‘the necessary inquiry’. The one brief account we have of the episode says that many of the convicts were out of irons, but there is no mention of an actual uprising. There appears to have been some kind of judicial inquiry upon arrival in New South Wales, since the Judge Advocate wrote that the Agent:<br />
<br />
. . . thought it indispensable to the safety of the ship to cause an instant example to be made, and ordered one of the convicts who was found out of irons to be executed that night. Others he punished the next morning; and by these measures, as might well be expected, threw such a damp on the spirits of the rest, that he heard no more during the voyage of attempts or intentions to take the ship.<ref name="ftn63"> David Collins, ''An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales''<nowiki> [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975 (hereafter Collins), Vol.1, p.261.</nowiki></ref><br />
<br />
It is difficult for us to imagine why such an extreme response was considered necessary, but it needs to be placed in context. These men were bound together in a small society, surrounded by water, thousands of miles from the nearest British authorities. The punishment for ‘piracy’, the legal term for a mutiny at sea, was hanging on the shoreline at Execution Dock. The British Navy would go to great lengths to track down mutineers who successfully took one of their ships, sending the ''Pandora'' all the way out to Tahiti, in an attempt to capture the men who had taken the ''Bounty''.<ref name="ftn64"> Geoffrey Rawson, ''Pandora’s Last Voyage'', London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd,'' ''1963.</ref><br />
<br />
In some ways, the early Australian convict transports were in a similar position to the wagon trains that crossed the American prairies in the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where the emigrants were obliged to make and enforce their own system of justice once they had moved beyond the boundaries of the state. When confronted with a killing by one of their number, the emigrants were obliged to organise a search party, constitute a court, make a decision on guilt or innocence, agree on a form of punishment and carry out the same.<br />
<br />
As with merchant ships, they relied on a form of popular justice, meeting as a body politic to make decisions rather than deferring to the notional leader of the company. And, as with the merchant ships, it was not unusual for them to appoint strangers – individuals from other companies, or people they had met along the trail – to perform the functions of judge and jury.<ref name="ftn65"> John Phillip Reid, ''Policing the Elephant: Crime, Punishment, and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail'', San Marino, California: Huntingdon Library, 1997, pp.110, 117-132.</ref><br />
<br />
Expulsion was an option, but whether from a sense of justice or a concern for their fellow emigrants, there were numerous occasions on which they resigned themselves to the necessity of taking the offender’s life. As a journal-keeper on one of these wagon trains wrote:<br />
<br />
It was justice conscientiously administered, without law – an action necessary under the circumstances. . . It was a matter the necessity of which was deplorable, but the execution of which was imposed upon those who were on the spot and uncovered the convincing facts.<ref name="ftn66"> Ibid p.196.</ref><br />
<br />
There were, however, a number of significant differences between American wagon trains and British merchant ships. The ships’ masters were expected, as a matter of convention and ultimately of law, to organise a conference of all the officers before making life and death decisions. In taking a life, they were expected to have acted in the immediate aftermath of a violent uprising, and for the safety of the ship; unlike the emigrants on the Overland Trail, they were not permitted to organise a criminal trial and execute justice in their own right. Unlike the wagon trains, merchant ships engaged in the convict trade were bound by a formal system of justice, and they were subject to the criminal law once they arrived at their destination.<br />
<br />
=== Flogging ===<br />
<br />
Flogging was relatively common on merchant and naval ships, for the maintenance of order, and it was generally necessary on ships carrying convicted criminals to the Antipodes. It was a disciplinary measure, similar to the corporal punishment imposed (at the time) by a parent on a child, a teacher on a student or a master on a servant. In the case of insurrections, it was also justified as a means of self-defence to restore the safety of the ship.<br />
<br />
In most cases, floggings were confined to the ringleaders, or to convicts who had been caught out of irons, and the number of lashes was relatively few. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), for example, once two of the ringleaders had been hung, punishments were administered to a handful of others – three dozen to one and two dozen to another two. This was an extraordinarily mild response, given the seriousness of the threat to the ship.<ref name="ftn67"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the ringleaders was shot and another was given 250 lashes. That was a serious punishment, but properly administered it should not have threatened the man’s life. Floggings of this kind were frequently handed out to soldiers and marines for offences that were much less serious.<ref name="ftn68"> Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Barwell'' (1797), the risk of a mutiny was very real, with a significant number of the convicts out of irons. The ship’s journal is difficult to read, but it appears that several dozen men were given two or three dozen lashes, a mild punishment, however one of the ringleaders was given ten dozen, another eight and several six. This was a measured response and it would not have been considered inappropriate by the authorities in Sydney or at home.<ref name="ftn69"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37.</ref><br />
<br />
The punishment on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) was more extensive. As noted above, there was clear evidence in this case that the sergeant of the guard had been collecting knives so the convicts could cut their irons, and he had disabled many of the sentries’ weapons. A significant number of convicts had freed themselves from their shackles. It will be recalled that Captain Hogan was slow in responding, waiting until he had clear evidence that the conspiracy was real, and he interrogated the suspected mutineers over several days, collecting detailed statements. Forty-two men and eight women were punished, in varying degrees. There was a second conspiracy around four weeks later, and on this occasion, around forty of the leaders were ‘severely punished’.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not explain how many lashes they were given. The only occasion where a number is mentioned is two dozen lashes given to one of the soldiers, a mild punishment. The subsequent inquiry by the Judge Advocate concluded:<br />
<br />
. . . we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn70"> ‘Inquiry re Conspiracy. . . ‘, SRNSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17, p.387; TNA CO201/13/160a.</ref><br />
<br />
=== Confinement and Removal from the Ship ===<br />
<br />
Where military officers, gentlemen convicts or crew members were involved, and/or where the evidence was unclear, ships’ captains were much less willing to resort to violent punishment and suspected conspirators were confined in some way. <br />
<br />
''The ship’s company:'' The crew members on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) who were thought to have assisted with the mutiny were confined and offloaded at Madeira: there is no evidence that they were flogged, and it is unlikely that they were later punished in any other way. This was not unusual: when sailing in company, it was common for unruly crew members to be removed from the ship and placed on board the commodore, or one of the other vessels in the convoy.<ref name="ftn71"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport’, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Surprize'' (1794), Captain Campbell had become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of his Chief Mate, a Mr Macpherson. At a time when there were already allegations of a conspiracy among the convicts, some of the crew claimed that Macpherson had deliberately set the sails so as to cause her to drop back in the fleet. Campbell spoke to the commodore (''HMS Suffolk'') and had him removed from the ship. While the Scottish Martyrs sought to make a great deal of this, it is clear that Macpherson was openly associating with the republican exiles, and had suffered some kind of breakdown; he had lost the confidence of his captain. There was nothing untoward about Campbell’s response: two weeks later, the master of the ''Ponsborne'', an East Indiaman sailing in company with the ''Surprize'', sent three men, including the boatswain’s mate, on board the ''Suffolk'' for disorderly behaviour, receiving three others in their place.<ref name="ftn72"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SRNSW 5/1156, pp.2, 4 & 12<nowiki>; </nowiki>Patrick Campbell at TNA CO201/12/188-189 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.860-1; Journal of the ''Ponsborne'', IOR L/MAR/B/462J, 15 May 1794.</ref><br />
<br />
''The military guard:'' One of the soldiers on the ''Boddington'' (1793) was placed in irons for the duration of the voyage, with the expectation that he would be punished in the colony. There is no evidence that he was.<ref name="ftn73"> Kent to Nepean, 18 March 1793, TNA HO42/25/160-161a.</ref> On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), Sergeant Ellis – against whom there was clear evidence of his complicity in the plot – was confined on the poop deck and then flogged to extract a confession, although the number of lashes is unknown. One of the privates was also flogged, twice, receiving two dozen the second time, but another two were merely confined and one of these had his head shaved.<ref name="ftn74"> TNA CO201/13/150a, 156, 158a; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.103-109.</ref><br />
<br />
''Convicts:'' While Captain Campbell believed that two of the Scottish Martyrs were at the bottom of the conspiracy on board the ''Surprize'' (1794), he was conscious that their treatment was being closely followed in the British press, and they were simply confined. Campbell wrote to the ship‘s owners:<br />
<br />
I have taken every means in my power to be cautious in the treatment of so many descriptions of people, and it is reasonable to suppose from the connections of Palmer and Skirving, the two apparent ringleaders of this Plot, that every exertion will be used in their favour, and to slander those whose lives they meant to take but whatever you may hear you may rest perfectly satisfied that I have taken such cautious Steps as to put it out of the power of the most malicious to injure me or any of the Civil Officers appointed by Government. . .<ref name="ftn75"> Copy of Capt. Campbell’s letter from Rio Janeiro to Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, n.d., TNA CO201/12/186.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Minerva'' (1799), Captain Salkeld responded to the initial rumours of a conspiracy by locking 14 of the supposed mutineers in a strong room. The stories persisted, but Salkeld was unable to find hard evidence of a conspiracy. The surgeon, John Washington Price, described their dilemma:<br />
<br />
Though we are sensible of his guilt, yet we could not procure sufficient evidence against him (those who could give it being afraid to come forward), we permit him to remain unpunished, but two of his confederates who have been in the habit of both receiving and forwarding messages from and to him have been put in double irons with a chain passing from each through the bars that are a midship in the prison. And there we leave them to commune together and to deliberate on the best method to effect their liberation.<ref name="ftn76"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, pp.120-121.</ref><br />
<br />
= Accountable in Law =<br />
As previously observed, the masters of convict transports were legally accountable for the manner in which they responded to a mutiny or a conspiracy on board their ships. Prior to the formal establishment of a Court of Vice Admiralty in 1798, the Governors relied on the Judge Advocate and a bench of magistrates to conduct administrative inquiries into mutinies, conspiracies and allegations of maltreatment on board the convict transports.<br />
<br />
''Unreported Inquiries:'' There is no formal record of such an inquiry for the ''Albemarle'' (1791), where two of the mutineers had been executed, but the Judge Advocate wrote a detailed account of the mutiny in his journal, which almost certainly means that he conducted some kind of investigation.<ref name="ftn77"> Collins, Vol.1, p.151.</ref> The same applies to the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), where one of the many convicts out of irons had been executed.<ref name="ftn78"> Collins, Vol.1, p.261.</ref><br />
<br />
A number of papers have survived relating to events on the ''Surprize'' (1794). Shortly after their arrival in Sydney Cove, two of the Scottish Martyrs submitted a petition to the Governor, insisting that Captain Campbell had obtained confessions and testimonies through promises, bribes, threats and torture, and proposing that criminal charges be instituted against him. Campbell provided the Governor with a contemporaneous account of the events on board the ship, and the evidence that had been collected throughout the course of his inquiries, seeking the prosecution and punishment of two of the Martyrs and their followers.<br />
<br />
There is no record of these matters in the journal of the Judge Advocate, and the Acting Governor, Francis Grose, and Governor Hunter (when he arrived) seem to have dealt with the matter themselves, refusing to take any action against either side.<ref name="ftn79"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SANSW 5/1156; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.862-873, 879-882.</ref> One of the Martyrs later published a self-serving account, and historians have been inclined to accept their version of events, but we are no better equipped to ascertain the truth today than Governor Hunter was in 1794.<ref name="ftn80"> Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
''Formal Judicial Inquiries:'' The first detailed transcript of a judicial inquiry relates to the flogging of convicts on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795). Captain Hogan lodged a formal ‘protest’ concerning the mutiny shortly after arrival, but the formal investigation was initiated as the result of a written complaint by the corporal of the guard who had been confined for his supposed part in the conspiracy. He accused Hogan of ‘inhumane treatment’ and false imprisonment. The inquiry was chaired by the Judge Advocate, David Collins, assisted by the Acting Colonial Surgeon, William Balmain, in their capacity as Justices of the Peace.<br />
<br />
Balmain conducted some kind of preliminary investigation, collecting statements in the form of affidavits, and the hearing itself seems to have lasted for a single day. Collins and Balmain reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
We beg leave to lay before you the accompanying depositions and papers, from a careful examination of which we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn81"> ‘Proceedings on Board the Ship ''Marquis Cornwallis'': In the Matter of Capt. Hogan’s Treatment of the Convicts’, SANSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17 pp.387-398; TNA CO201/13/154-160a; ‘Conspiracy to Seize the ''Marquis Cornwallis''’, HRNSW Vol.3, pp.102-111.</ref><br />
<br />
Another inquiry was conducted the following year by three justices of the peace into the floggings on the ''Britannia'' (1796). Once again, there was some form of preliminary investigation to marshal the evidence, and testimony was heard over five days. The magistrates reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
After maturely considering the Evidence on both sides that has been brought before us on this Occasion, We are unanimously of Opinion that Captain Dennett’s Conduct in punishing the convicts in the manner he did for conspiring to take the Ship was imprudent and ill-judged, in as much as he did not take the sense of the Officers and Ship’s Company, individually, as to the steps necessary to be adopted for the preservation of the Ship and the lives of the People therein, for altho’ they might have been all present, and many of them assisting on that occasion, yet their not having been formally consulted renders it questionable whether the Captain’s proceedings would have met their unanimous approbation, and so far his Conduct in this instance may be regarded as bordering on too great a degree of severity. But we also clearly concur of Opinion that the Surgeon (Mr Byers) was beyond all the other Bystanders particularly culpable in not stedfastly protesting against the Cruelties which he charges Captain Dennett with and was therefore inexcusably negligent and indifferent in the performance of his duty, and consequently in an eminent degree, accessory to the inhumanities he complains of, such is our Opinion of the first charge. . .<br />
<br />
Since this was an administrative process, they also recommended reform of the transportation system:<br />
<br />
Before we conclude, we here beg leave to offer to his Excellency our Opinion that all Ships coming to this port with Transports should have on board an Officer of the Crown, who should be invested with proper power and authority, as well for the conducting of the Ship as the particular inspection and direction of the management of the Convicts on Board.<ref name="ftn82"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/52; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277.</ref><br />
<br />
''Court of Vice Admiralty:'' The only trial in the Court of Vice Admiralty in this period involved the prosecution of Captain Luckyn Betts of the ''Hercules'' (1801) for the unlawful deaths of 13 convicts in the court of the mutiny, and the deliberate execution of Jeremiah Prendergass, one of the ringleaders, shortly after the insurrection had been suppressed. Evidence was heard over two days, and as previously noted, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter:<br />
<br />
The Court after mature deliberation are satisfied that a mutiny actually existed on board the ship Hercules of which the prisoner Luckyn Betts was Master, do therefore acquit him of the first Count in the Indictment but find him guilty of Manslaughter on the Second And do Sentence him to pay a Fine of £500 to be appropriated to the Orphan Fund of this Colony, and that the said Luckyn Betts be imprisoned until the said Fine of £500 be paid.<ref name="ftn83"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254 at p.254; ‘The Trial of Captain Betts’, HRNSW Vol.4, pp.810-818 at p.818. </ref><br />
<br />
The prosecution was based on the evidence of the senior military officer on board, supported by his subordinates, and Betts’ account was corroborated by the ship’s officers. There seems little doubt that at the time, the military officers had supported Prendergass’s execution, which may account for the finding of manslaughter rather than murder.<br />
<br />
This was probably the most serious convict mutiny in the history of the Australian transportation system, and the court showed little interest in the deaths which occurred in the process of suppressing it, in spite of evidence indicating that some of these occurred in remote corners of the ship in the final stages of the insurrection.<br />
<br />
The court was most concerned to establish the circumstances surrounding Prenderass’ death, and focused on the time which had elapsed since the retaking of the quarterdeck and the failure of Betts to hold a ship’s council. The defence witnesses insisted that the safety of the ship had not yet been secured, and Betts sought to defend his actions by describing his emotional state at the time:<br />
<br />
A Blunderbuss had been Snapt at my Head the Consequence of which the Head of Providence had averted. I had just heard the solemn declaration of a dying man, who was reproaching Prendergass for being the Sole Author of the Mutiny. Prendergass had but a little time before been detected with an Adze in his Hand Attempting the Life of one of the Seamen. . . the deck was Strewed with dead Bodies, the Confusion was great, the Agitation of my Mind was more than Language can describe, and perhaps, unless You, Gentlemen, can for a Moment conceive Yourselves in my Situation, it will be impossible for you to have any thing like and adequate Idea of it.<ref name="ftn84"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
Again, this may help to explain why the finding was not murder. Governor King suspended the sentence, and deferred to the authority of the Home Secretary, however the ultimate outcome of the matter is not clear. The Transport Board did not consider that he had breached his contractual obligations.<ref name="ftn85"> Transport Board to King, 14 November 1803, ''Historical Records of Australia'', Series 1, Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1914 (hereafter HRA) Series 1, Vol.4, p.425.</ref> <br />
<br />
''Prosecution of Mutineers:'' There was little interest in pursuing the mutineers once they had arrived in New South Wales. Given the violence of some of the insurrections, and the seriousness with which mutiny was regarded in British courts, this comes as a surprise. None of the convicts who were involved in the mutinies on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) and the ''Hercules'' (1801), the most violent of the uprisings, were tried upon their arrival in New South Wales. Some of the supposed conspirators on the ''Barwell'' (1797) were tried and acquitted.<ref name="ftn86"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.467; TNA HCA1/64.</ref> Five of the seamen on the ''Hercules'' (1801) were charged ‘with force and arms upon the High Seas of piratically feloniously and wickedly combining to stir up bring about and make revolt and mutiny and did contribute to seize the ship and murder the officers and passengers’, but the evidence was not strong and the prosecutions were abandoned after the first of the men were acquitted.<ref name="ftn87"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court. . .’, 14 July 1802, TNA CO201/21/255-257.</ref><br />
<br />
British courts were reluctant to revisit the decisions made by ships’ captains a thousand miles away, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. They were often faced with widely differing accounts of what happened by parties who had developed deep suspicion, and in some cases, loathing, for one another in the course of the voyage. Criticism tended to focus on procedural matters – the time elapsed since the security of the ship was restored, and whether the captain had consulted with his officers.<br />
<br />
But unlike wagons trains on the Overland Trail, convict transports were governed by law, and it is clear that ships’ captains moderated their behaviour out of a concern at possible criminal prosecution and, in the case of well-connected gentlemen convicts, potential scrutiny by the press.<br />
<br />
= Too Great a Degree of Severity? =<br />
== Kindness and Humanity ==<br />
In some cases, however, we encounter captains who sailed from England with the expressed hope of not needing to punish any of the convicts in the course of the voyage. This seems to have been the case on the'' Minerva (1799) ''where, after they had received allegations of yet another conspiracy, Surgeon Price wrote:<br />
<br />
We have had very great hopes, and indeed wished very much, that in no instance during the voyage. . . we should have occasion to punish any of these too unfortunate men, but their hopes were frustrated, and our wishes proved abortive.<ref name="ftn88"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, p.88.</ref><br />
<br />
The master of the'' Friendship (1799)'', Hugh Reid, took his wife with him on the voyage, and prior to sailing from Ireland, she noted in her journal that:<br />
<br />
Captain Reid thought that it would be possible to take the prisoners to the place of their destination without having an occasion intervene for inflicting on them punishment; or any severity beyond that of attending to their safe custody. . .<ref name="ftn89"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', September 1819, pp.238-239.</ref><br />
<br />
Reid had been Chief Mate on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', and when he and his wife dined with his former master, Michael Hogan, at the Cape, he reported that the prisoners had behaved very well, and that ‘they had put it out of his power or that of his officers to lay a finger on them: and that he was in hopes of landing them at the place of their destination without introducing the machinery of punishment’. Hogan – who was clearly more comfortable with using the lash if it was required – was surprised.<ref name="ftn90"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', November 1819, p.455.</ref><br />
<br />
On their return to England, Mrs Reid wrote that her husband received letters from relatives of the convicts they had carried out:<br />
<br />
It was particularly gratifying to my husband to receive letters from the friends of those poor men whom embarked from Ireland, expressive of their sincere thanks for the great kindness and humanity shewn to them on the passage, and observing that they had mentioned that the only hardship they experienced was the necessary confinement, which the laws of their country and the safety of the ship required.<ref name="ftn91"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal, ''December 1820, p.577.</ref><br />
<br />
What is significant is not so much that the convicts’ relatives sent these letters, but that Hugh and Mary Ann Reid were grateful to have received them. This was how Captain Reid wanted to be known.<br />
<br />
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the transportation system, but in general, convicts on a voyage to the Antipodes were treated well. When the women of the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) asked the ship’s surgeon if they could substitute tea and sugar for some of their daily serving of salted meat, he made a recommendation to the contractor, who passed it on to the Navy Board with his warm support. From that time forward, all female convicts on Botany Bay ships were issued with a ration of tea and sugar throughout the voyage. And when it was realised that a number of the women were pregnant, the government organised a supply of linen, which Richards arranged to have made up. On their lying-in, convict women were supplied not only with clouts and pilchers for their newborn children, but bedgowns and nightcaps for themselves. This is a very different account of the transportation system than the lurid tales that amateur and family historians like to tell.<br />
<br />
Of course, the living conditions in a convict prison could be deeply unpleasant, particularly when prisoners were sent on board with typhus and/or the ship encountered high seas and stormy weather, but those were circumstances beyond the control of the ships’ officers.<br />
<br />
== An Intrinsically Pathological Situation ==<br />
There is one ship, however, where the level of violence used in response to the conspiracy indicates that a deeply pathological situation had developed. The atmosphere on board the ''Britannia'' (1796) was tense from the outset – shortly before she sailed from Cork, there had been an attempted mutiny on one of the convict ships, although the details are few, and it is unclear which vessel was involved.<ref name="ftn92"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796; ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 16 September 1796, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
A significant number of the men had been associated with a revolutionary movement known as the Defenders, which relied on the administration of oaths to maintain secrecy. Some of these men had participated in a violent battle with the Irish Militia in May of the previous year, and thus were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence. Others had been involved in lynch mobs and conspired to assassinate public officials.<ref name="ftn93"> Barbara Hall, ''Death or Liberty: The Convicts of the Britannia, Ireland to Botany Bay, 1797'' (hereafter Hall), Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Nor were the ship’s officers reassured by the soldiers who had been sent on board. Several of them had come directly from the Savoy prison, four had run from the ship at Cork, they were insolent and one had threatened the cook with a knife. They had proved unreliable as sentries, one falling asleep on watch, and another getting drunk with the seamen.<ref name="ftn94"> Hall, pp.237, 239; Journal of the ''Britannia'', IOR L/MAR/B/285XX, 8 & 14 November, 23 December 1796, 2 January 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
When Captain Dennett inquired of the resident agent at Cork whether the government had any instructions as to how to deal with such an unruly shipload of prisoners, he was told that there were none. He was to act as circumstances might require. Dennett later explained:<br />
<br />
Left then alone in a situation entirely new, I was determined if the conduct of those committed to my charge would but permit to make them as comfortable as it was possible, but at the same time if they behaved ill to have them punished in such a manner as to deter others from being guilty of similar offences. I have always been of opinion that severity in some instances is lenity in general.<ref name="ftn95"> ‘Captain Dennott’s Address to the Court’, 21 June 1797, HRNSW Vol.3, p.275</ref><br />
<br />
Upon their arrival at Rio de Janeiro, the convicts were transferred to an island in the harbour for the sake of their health. While the details are scant, it is evident that several of the convicts attempted an escape, attacking the guard and trying to steal their muskets.<ref name="ftn96"> TNA CO201/14/42a, 43, 47a & HRNSW Vol.3, p.257, 258, 266; Journal of the ''Britannia'', 17, 21 & 22 February 1797, and evidence attributed to Kit Hughes on 25 March 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
Several days after sailing from port, one of the men who had been liberated because of good behaviour, came aft and advised the captain that the convicts in the fore prison had been administering oaths and were plotting to take the ship. Having had the story confirmed by a second prisoner, Dennett set about flogging the conspirators to make them confess – six men were given 300 lashes each in the course of the afternoon, and after some resistance, they implicated others. At the end of the day, the fore prison was thoroughly searched and a large number of cutting implements were uncovered – knives, saws, scissors, spike nails, staples and iron hoops. There was no question that an attack was being planned.<br />
<br />
Dennett now set about punishing men for their involvement in this conspiracy and in the attempted escapes at Rio de Janeiro. The second day began with the flogging of two men who had been given 300 lashes the day before. They were given another 500 each. When the cat ceased to open their skin, Dennett had the boatswain make up another. By the time that day was over, another 5,700 lashes had been administered to 20 men, and another 1,575 were given the following day. In all, more than 8,000 lashes administered to 31 men over the course of two and a half days.<br />
<br />
One can imagine what it must have been like in the prison of the ''Britannia'', listening to the sounds emanating from the deck above. On the third day of flogging, one of the convict women threw herself overboard. She was already suffering from mental illness, but her suicide was a reaction to the events of the previous days. One of the soldiers followed her the next day, ‘out of a fit of insanity’. Both of the men who had been given 800 lashes died in the weeks that followed, and three more besides. When the ''Britannia'' arrived in Sydney Cove two months later, several of the prisoners had to be sent to hospital, including one man who had been given 700 lashes.<ref name="ftn97"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/31ff; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board, SANSW 5/1156, or Copy at COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
As previously noted, a judicial inquiry was established into the events on board the ''Britannia'', which concluded that the captain’s behaviour was ‘bordering on too great a degree of severity’. It also found that the surgeon superintendent, the government’s agent on board the ship, was ‘particularly culpable in not steadfastly protesting against the Cruelties’ practised by Captain Dennett.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Stanford Experiment (1973), we understand much better what happened on the ''Britannia''. In reflecting on their experiment at the time, Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney wrote that the anti-social behaviour of the students who had acted as guards ‘were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals’.<ref name="ftn98"> C. Haney, W. Banks and P. Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'', (1973) 1, pp.69-97, at p.90.</ref> The sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib in 2003 reminds that these lessons have still not been learned.<br />
<br />
Zimbardo and Haney have argued that to a significant extent, this behaviour is situational: ‘the ‘psychologic’ of the environment was more powerful than the benign intentions or predispositions of the participants.’ No doubt this explains some of what happened on the ''Britannia'' in 1797.<br />
<br />
But others have pointed to role that dehumanisation plays in the abuse prisoners and prisoners of war, the systematic devaluation of human attributes in outgroups.<ref name="ftn99"> See, for example, G. Tendayi Viki, Daniel Osgood and Sabine Phillips, ‘Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war’, ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', (2013) 49, pp.325-328.</ref> There may also have been some of this in the reaction to the conspiracy on the ''Britannia'' in the middle of the South Atlantic on the 23<sup>rd</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> and 25<sup>th</sup> of March 1797. Among the ships’ officers and the public authorities in New South Wales, there was not a great deal of respect for the Irish and there was significant fear of political rebels such as the Defenders. In writing of the conspiracy on the ''Boddington'' (1793), the Judge Advocate, David Collins referred to ‘the wild lawless Irish’, and in reflecting on the events on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), he wrote:<br />
<br />
It appeared that the men were for the most part of the description of people termed Defenders, desperate, and ripe for any scheme from which danger and destruction were likely to ensue. The women were of the same complexion; and their ingenuity and cruelty were displayed in the part they were to take in the purposed insurrection, which was the preparing of pulverised glass to mix with the flour of which the seamen were to make their puddings. What an importation!<ref name="ftn100"> Collins, Vol.1, pp.262, 380-381.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor Hunter wrote to the Home Secretary of ‘such horrid characters as the people called Irish Defenders, who. . . I wish had been either sent to the coast of Africa or some place as fit for them’.<ref name="ftn101"> Hunter to Portland, 12 November 1796, TNA CO201/13//218a.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor King referred to the ‘mutinous Irish’ on the ''Hercules''.<ref name="ftn102"> King to Hobart, 9 May 1803, HRA Series 1, Vol.4, p.85.</ref> And a newspaper report in Sydney concerning one of the men who arrived on that ship claimed that ‘he was well known in Ireland during the rebellion for his abominable depravities. . .’<ref name="ftn103"> ''Sydney Gazette'', 19 January 1806, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
What is striking, however, about the responses to the mutinies and conspiracies on board convict ships in the early years of the transportation system, is how rare such an abusive response was.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
No doubt there were false alarms, but one in four convict transports carrying men in the period 1787 to 1801 experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, and if we include the mutinies on the hulks and the smaller vessels which carried convicts to the port of embarkation, then the ships’ officers did need to exercise great care in the management of the male convicts, particularly where Irish political prisoners were concerned. As the tragic fate of the captain and the chief mate on the ''Lady Shore'' demonstrated, there was a high cost to pay when the authorities under-estimated the prospects of an uprising.<br />
<br />
Hunter was right to say that fears of insurrection sometimes excused ‘the enforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline’, but these occasions were rare. In general, the punishment of convicts in the passage to New South Wales was moderate, even when violent mutinies were concerned, and in several cases, we encounter masters who dreamed of carrying the prisoners to their destination without the need to punish a single one.<br />
<br />
While the courts were reluctant to second-guess events which took place some thousands of miles away at sea, there is evidence that the prospect of subsequent scrutiny served to moderate the response to an insurrection. The situation of a convict on board a transport bound for the Antipodes was very different from that of a slave bound for the Americas, or an emigrant on the Overland Trail.<br />
<br />
When mutinies did occur, the ships’ officers were quite willing to execute one of the ringleaders to ensure the safety of the ship, or to flog a number of the conspirators. But with only two exceptions, they paused to seek counsel from the ships’ officers, military officers, and free passengers, and there is only one occasion on which the conspiracy became ‘a convenient cloak for cruelty’.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mutinies]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies_on_Convict_Transports&diff=580Mutinies on Convict Transports2016-07-06T14:24:38Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>Paper delivered to the 7<sup>th</sup> International Congress of Maritime History,</center><br />
<br />
<center>Perth, Western Australia on 27 June 2016</center><br />
<br />
<center>by Gary L. Sturgess </center><br />
<br />
''' Abstract '''<br />
Of the 47 ships that carried convicts to New South Wales between 1787 and 1801, one in four experienced a mutiny, actual or planned, by the convicts and/or the soldiers. For the most part, this was an Irish problem, with the conspiracies involving hardened political rebels with antipathy to the British Crown.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the course of these mutinies and conspiracies, the violence employed in suppressing them, the conditions that contributed to the fear of mutiny and the use of excess violence, and subsequent legal oversight.<br />
<br />
= False Alarms? =<br />
In a paper written on the ship as he returned home from New South Wales in 1801, recently-retired Governor John Hunter observed that rumours of planned mutinies on convict ships were sometimes used to justify abusive behaviour:<br />
<br />
. . . the creating false alarms of mutiny or insurrection, has some times excused the inforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline, <nowiki>and this, rather than real disease, caused in this ship [the </nowiki>''Hillsborough''] so great a proportion. . . to die. . . The alarm of mutiny is a very convenient cloak for cruelty; and if the prisoners were better treated, there would be less occasion to dread it; but it is an excuse for every thing wicked that a bad man can devise.<ref name="ftn1"> John Hunter, ''Remarks on the Causes of the Colonial Expense of the Establishment of New South Wales, &c'', London, 1802, p.48.</ref><br />
<br />
Two decades later, Commissioner John Bigge, who had been sent out to investigate the transportation system on behalf of the British government, wrote that ‘the fear of combinations amongst the convicts to take the ship, is proved by experience of later years to be groundless. . .’<ref name="ftn2"> John Bigge, ‘Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed by the House of Commons, 19 June 1822, ''House of Commons Parliamentary Papers'', p.3.</ref><br />
<br />
Hunter had never spent time on a convict transport: he had originally sailed out with the First Fleet, but he had done so on the quarter deck of ''HMS Sirius'', one of two naval vessels accompanying the expedition, and the risk of a mutiny on that voyage was minimised by the large number of marines being sent out to the new settlement. Bigge had sailed to New South Wales on the ''John Barry'', a copybook of a convict voyage, with an experienced surgeon superintendent and three teachers, very little sickness, no deaths, and no mutiny or rumour thereof. He had no knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in the early years of transportation.<br />
<br />
In fact, over the first decade and a half of the Australian transportation system, from 1787 until 1801, there were 11 mutinies and conspiracies – more than one in four of the ships that carried male convicts and/or soldiers to New South Wales in that period. Of these, there were five actual mutinies (one of them successful) and six conspiracies that were sufficiently advanced for clear evidence to exist of the mutineers’ intentions (such as large numbers of cut irons or the accumulation of implements that could be used for that purpose).<br />
<br />
There were a further eight ships where rumours of a planned conspiracy provoked some kind of intervention on the part of the ships’ officers, and where the seriousness of the situation is open to debate. What cannot be denied, however, is that many of the mariners and free passengers who sailed on these voyages were terrified of an uprising by the convicts and/or the soldiers (many of the latter having been recently been released from gaol themselves).<br />
<br />
Knowing that James Willcocks, the master of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), would shortly be killed by mutinous soldiers on the outward voyage, it is difficult not to be moved by his increasingly desperate pleas for intervention by the authorities before his ship sailed from Portsmouth. Willcocks was no coward: when his ship had been taken by a French privateer on her previous voyage, he had insisted on remaining on board and had convinced his captors that they should release her.<ref name="ftn3"> Journal of the ''Lady Shore'', IOR L/MAR/B/429B, 19-22 July 1796.</ref><br />
<br />
But as he prepared to sail for New South Wales in April 1797 with a shipload of female convicts and a detachment of British, French and Irish recruits being sent out to the settlement, Willcocks was terrified at the incendiary behaviour of some of the soldiers, and asked for their firearms to be taken away. When their commanding officer, Colonel Francis Grose, came on board to investigate, his concerns were dismissed and Willcocks was accused of being violent and overbearing. The unfortunate man resigned himself to his situation and set about preparing his will.<ref name="ftn4"> J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, pp.188-189; King to the Transport Board, 23 May 1797, TNA ADM108/46/324; Willcocks to King, 27 May 1797, TNA HO42/40/134-136a. His will is at TNA Prob 11/1307.</ref><br />
<br />
Passengers on the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) were mortified when they discovered that 140 of the convicts were being admitted on deck for fresh air at one time. Some of the prisoners had boasted that they would take the ship, and the passengers organised their own watch to supplement the one provided by the guard. James Wilshire, who was going out to the settlement to take up a position in the commissariat, wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Before we left Spithead they said if they should take the ship from us, they would make every one walk the plank. The Captain is a very religious and I believe a very good man, but I am afraid he shows too much lenity to such vile depraved characters, as I am afraid that all the comforts and attention for their good which possibly can be shown will, [at] the first opportunity, be inhumanly repaid by putting us under the greatest tortures of death which possibly be described. . .</nowiki><ref name="ftn5"> James Wilshire, ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 22 June 1800.</ref><br />
<br />
There was no mutiny on the ''Royal Admiral'', and we will never know whether the convicts were serious in their boasts about taking the ship. What cannot be denied is that James Wilshire and his fellow passengers were in fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
Questions of security and freedom mattered – too much liberty and some of the prisoners would mutiny or escape; too little and more of them would die from sickness and disease. If the ships’ officers routinely over-estimated the prospect of an uprising and confined the prisoners too much, they were responsible, in part, for the high mortality rates on the early convict voyages. If the majority of conspiracies were fictions, dreamed up by convict informants to curry favour with their gaolers (and if junior military officers, naval lieutenants and/or naval surgeons would have been less affected by such fantasies), then the contractual system used for transporting convicts prior to 1815 was inherently flawed. If the legal and administrative framework governing these contracts was incapable of preventing excessively violent and abusive responses to mutinies and conspiracies, then government is to be condemned for relying on a system that was incapable of protecting the prisoners in the passage to Botany Bay.<br />
<br />
This paper explores the security arrangements on board the early convict transports (1787-1801), each of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies and alleged conspiracies that occurred during that period, and the manner in which the ships’ officers responded.<ref name="ftn6"> The mutinies include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), the ''Ann'' (1800) and the ''Hercules'' (1801).<br />
<br />
The conspiracies were on the ''Boddington'' and the ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), the ''Britannia'' (1796), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) and the ''Minerva'' (1798).<br />
<br />
The alleged conspiracies were on the ''Scarborough'' (1787 & 1790), the ''Britannia'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800), and the ''Atlas'' (1801). </ref><br />
<br />
= Managing through Contract =<br />
The overwhelming majority of convicts shipped to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors, and in the first three decades – from 1787 until 1815 – the ships’ officers were responsible for their day-to-day management.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the claims of some historians, the First Fleet was managed under same the arrangements, with the difference that the commodore of the fleet (and Governor-elect of the new settlement), Captain Arthur Phillip, had over-riding authority, and chose to intervene in the management of the prisoners throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn7"> On the misunderstanding, see Robert Hughes, ''The Fatal Shore'', London: Collins Harvill, 1987, pp.144-5, based on Charles Bateson, ''The Convict Ships, 1787-1868'', 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., 1985, pp.10-11, 20. Statements about how the contractual system actually worked are based on a detailed analysis of the documentary record for the First Fleet (1787) and the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789), available from the author.</ref><br />
<br />
In the early years, naval lieutenants usually accompanied some of the ships, as ‘agents for transports’: their experience had traditionally been limited to regulating the loading and navigation of naval transports, and while they were charged with the additional responsibility for monitoring the management of the prisoners, they were not qualified for this role.<ref name="ftn8"> No particular instructions were given to the naval agent on the First Fleet, but the agent who accompanied the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) had responsibility for ‘watching over the proceedings of the contractor and his agents’ and ensuring that ‘proper attention’ was paid to the convicts. (Sydney to the Treasury, 24 April 1789, TNA HO36/6/253-256 & TNA T1/667/398-399, 404; Steele to Stephens, 3 June 1789, TNA T27/40/257)<br />
<br />
The agent on the Second Fleet (1790) was to see that the women were kept separate from the men, and to ensure that they were not abused or ill-treated. He was to visit the ships whenever the weather permitted and to ensure that the prisons were washed and aired, and that the convicts were kept clean and had their clothes changed and washed. He was also to see that justice was done to the prisoners, but his authority extended only to keeping a journal and reporting on the masters’ behaviour upon arrival. (Rose to the Navy Board, 15 August 1789, TNA T1/672/209 & TNA T27/40/344; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)<br />
<br />
On the Third Fleet (1791), the agents were simply to ensure that the charter party was complied with, and to keep a journal. (Navy Board to Lieut. Samuel Blow, 25 January 1791, Alexander Hood, ‘Papers relating to Captain Alexander Hood's command of the ''Hebe'', Channel and Irish Sea: relating to the Convict Transport ''Queen''’, 18 November 1790 to 21 April 1791, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM) MKH/9, MS68/099)<br />
<br />
The instructions for the ''Kitty'' (1793) were similar to those of the Second Fleet. (Warrant issued to Lieut. Daniel Woodriff, 4 January 1793, TNA ADM106/2640)<br />
<br />
No more naval agents were appointed until the ''Earl Cornwallis'' (1800), with authority superintend the care, management and victualling of the convicts. (Transport Board to Hunter, 7 August 1800, TNA ADM108/67/270) This was the last occasion on which they were used.</ref><br />
<br />
Following the high mortality on the Second Fleet, naval surgeons were appointed as ‘surgeon superintendents’ on several of the ships, again responsible for oversight rather than direct management. They enjoyed mixed success, and with the outbreak of war in 1793, naval surgeons could no longer be spared for such duties.<ref name="ftn9"> Surgeon superintendents were appointed to the ''Royal Admiral'' and ''Bellona'' (1792), ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), ''Surprize'' (1794), ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), ''Ganges'' and ''Britannia'' (1796), ''Lady Shore'' (1797) and ''Minerva'' (1799), and then no more until the ''Northampton'' (1814). The ''Boddington'', the ''Sugar Cane'', the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', the ''Britannia'' and the ''Minerva'' all carried Irish convicts, and the Irish government persisted with surgeon superintendents long after the British government had ceased to use them. The status of the surgeon on the ''Ganges'' is unclear: he was going out to take up a position in the colony, and was assigned responsibilities for the convicts as well. The master of the ''Lady Shore'' did not intend to carry his own surgeon, presumably because the women would have the freedom of the deck, and he felt he should not be responsible for the health of the soldiers. The government appointed a surgeon instead.<br />
<br />
No details have survived of the instructions for the surgeon superintendents on the ''Royal Admiral'' and the ''Bellona''. On the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', they were to assist the ships’ surgeons ‘in the necessary attendance on the sick’, and enforce ‘a compliance with the several stipulations made with the contractor. . . for the maintenance & supply of the convicts & guard during their continuance on board’. The masters were contractually bound to obey all orders of the surgeon superintendents for the convicts’ welfare. (Late Draft of the Contract for the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', TNA CO201/7/346-9; ‘<nowiki>Draft [Nepean] to W. Richard Kent’, 12 December 1792, TNA CO201/7/420-422</nowiki>)<br />
<br />
We have no details of the instructions given to the subsequent surgeon superintendents, but it is clear from the inquiry into the floggings on the ''Britannia'', that the surgeon of that ship had not been given clear authority over the master. (F.M. Bladen (ed.), ''Historical Records of New South Wales'', 7 Volumes, Sydney: Government Printer, 1893-1901 (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 3, pp.235, 276-7, 488)</ref> It was not until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 that naval surgeons could once again be used, although it would take several years for them to assume full responsibility for the day-to-day management of the prisoners, and some chose to defer to strong-willed captains.<br />
<br />
Thus, from 1787 until a little after 1815, convicts were managed through a chain of authority cascading down from the Home Office to the Navy Board (and after 1794, the Transport Board), from them to the convict contractors and/or the ship owners, and from owners to masters. These early ships were, in essence, floating prisons, managed under contract, with the contractors’ agents responsible for the health and well-being of the convicts as well as the navigation and management of the vessel.<br />
<br />
= Security on Convict Ships =<br />
Prisoners on board convict ships were not confined as a form of punishment, but in order to prevent mutinies and escapes. This was consistent with 18<sup>th</sup> century notions of imprisonment, where the inmates enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the gaol throughout the day. In Britain, prison inmates were generally not provided with meals by their gaolers, receiving instead a county allowance and purchasing their own provisions. Men were often allowed to associate with the women throughout the day, which helps to explain why so many female convicts came on board the convict ships with a young child or in a state of pregnancy.<ref name="ftn10"> Wayne Joseph Sheehan, ‘The London Prison System, 1666-1795’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975, Chapter 4; Margaret DeLacy, ''Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850'', Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
Convict women were freed from their irons as soon as they were brought on board, and it was only the refractory who were confined throughout the course of the voyage. In many cases (until 1819 at least), they were permitted to form sexual relationships with the ships’ officers and (less often) the crew – there was, as yet, no appreciation that, as long as they occupied the subordinate status of prisoners, the women might not be able to make a truly independent decision in such matters.<br />
<br />
Boys were rarely ironed, sick convicts were usually freed from their shackles, and it was common for 20 or 30 of the more trustworthy men to be given the freedom of the deck to assist in sailing the ship and providing cleaning, cooking and nursing services for their fellow prisoners.<br />
<br />
In these early years, the male convicts were generally kept in single irons – shackles around each ankle connected by a chain – and when the weather permitted, they were allowed on deck for several hours a day for exercise, while the prison was cleaned and fumigated. On smaller ships, the convicts’ quarters were located on the lower deck, and on vessels with three decks, they were assigned to the lowest, known as the orlop deck. In wet weather and high seas, and in extreme cold, there was no alternative but to leave the convicts locked down in their quarters.<br />
<br />
Unruly convicts might be loaded with a second set of irons, referred to as ‘double irons’, and in some cases with ‘heavy irons’. If they were particularly troublesome, they might be confined in shackles joined with a bar iron (as opposed to a chain), a neck brace, handcuffs and/or thumbscrews (the latter designed to disable and not a form of torture as some have assumed), or ‘stapled’ to the deck. In the early years of the Australian transportation system, it was only the First Fleet – for the reasons already mentioned – where the male convicts were freed from their irons throughout the entire voyage.<br />
<br />
Security was usually provided by a small detachment of soldiers. When plans for the Australian transportation system were first being developed, Lord Sydney and his under-secretary, Evan Nepean, imagined that the contractors might provide the necessary guards, but this idea was quickly abandoned when it was realised how many marines would accompany the First Fleet.<ref name="ftn11"> ‘Draught to the Lords of the Treasury’, 18 August 1786, TNA CO201/2/3-10; Steele to Commissioners of the Navy, 26 August 1786, Public Record Office, TNA T27/38/336-337; Navy Board Minutes, 18 October 1786, TNA ADM106/2622.</ref><br />
<br />
There were no soldiers on the next voyage, since the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) carried only female convicts, and when plans were being made for the Second Fleet, the Home Office expected (yet again) that the guards would be provided by the contractors. This proposal was abandoned when shipbrokers made it clear that they would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance (because of a concern among underwriters about the prospect of mutiny).<ref name="ftn12"> Wellbank Sharp & Brown to Navy Board, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/232; Navy Board to Thomas Steele, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/231; Treasury to Navy Board, 29 October 1789, TNA T29/61/73.</ref> Plans to raise a new regiment for service in New South Wales were by then well advanced, and these were expedited so that a small detachment (of 15-20 men) could sail on each of the three convict transports that made up the Second Fleet.<br />
<br />
With the outbreak of war, the government had better things to do with its soldiers than to send them to the far side of the globe, and it became commonplace for half a dozen deserters to be taken out of the Savoy Prison and sent on board the convict transports, where they were handed a uniform and musket.<ref name="ftn13"> Lewis to The Honorable Colonel Fox, Chatham Barracks, 31 December 1792, TNA WO4/845/73.</ref><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, this practice caused deep concern among the masters of the convict transports. These men were often unruly, and the ships’ officers feared that they would conspire with the convicts to take the ship. Soldiers were significant players in two of the five mutinies, at least two and possibly four of the six conspiracies, and at least one of the alleged conspiracies in the ships in the period with which this paper is concerned.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Surprize'' (1794), the deserters were initially placed down among the convicts, and subsequently released and appointed as sentries on the main hatch which led into the prison.<ref name="ftn14"> Lewis to Sir Hew Dalrymple, Chatham Barracks, 13 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/92-3; Lewis to John King, 15 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/93; Campbell to the Navy Board, 17 February 1794, TNA T1/728/198-199 & HO35/14; Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797, pp.16-17.</ref> The 74 soldiers on the ''Lady Shore'' were not there to provide security since the ship was carrying female convicts and only two men. But they did include a number of French prisoners of war (who had claimed that they were royalists), some Irish recruits (always regarded as suspect) and several deserters brought directly from the Savoy.<ref name="ftn15"> ‘Return of a Detachment of the New South Wales Corps, embarked at Gravesend on board the Lady Shore, under the Command of Ensign Minchin, 27<sup>th</sup> March 1797’, based on remarks made by Corporal John Spice, TNA WO40/16/60; Statement of Simon Murchison, 21 January 1798, TNA ADM108/19/144 & HO42/44/90a; </ref><br />
<br />
Following the mutiny on that ship, the contractors and ship owners were reluctant to have a military detachment on board, and for several years some of the masters were paid to provide their own security. However, this practice had ceased by 1803, and thereafter soldiers were always employed.<ref name="ftn16"> There were no soldiers on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Ann'' (1800) or the ''Perseus'' and ''Coromandel'' (1802). The use of contracted guards seems to have ended with the ''Rolla'' (1802) – Minutes of the Transport Board, 14 December 1801, TNA ADM108/70/334.</ref><br />
<br />
Contrary to what has often been assumed, the soldiers were not responsible for managing the convicts day-to-day, and they had no say over when the convicts were allowed on deck, what chains they wore, and whether they would be punished. Until sometime after 1815, it was the ships’ officers, and particularly the master and the surgeon, who were responsible for these matters.<br />
<br />
The First Fleet was somewhat different. Phillip gave a great deal of authority to the naval surgeons and assistant surgeons who were accompanying him out to live in the settlement, assigning one to each of the transports carrying the largest numbers of male convicts. He also instructed the marine officers to work in collaboration with the ships’ masters in making decisions about the convicts’ security, and we can find a number of examples of this happening throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn17"> John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales'', Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.70-71; Stephens to Smith, 24 February 1787, TNA ADM2/1178/151; Stephens to Collins, 2 March 1787, National Marines Museum, Portsmouth (hereafter NMaM) Arch11/52/2, p.166.</ref><br />
<br />
When the NSW Corps joined the Second Fleet, the senior officers attempted to take control of convict security, imitating what they (wrongly) believed to have been the situation on the First Fleet. This resulted in considerable tension between the ships’ officers and the officers of the NSW Corps, which was quickly resolved in favour of the former. The principal reason for this was that the contractors and ships’ captains had provided a financial bond of £40 for each convict, guaranteeing that they would be delivered to their specified destination, but the Navy Board also recognised that at the end of the day, the responsibility for the security of the ship must lie with the master.<ref name="ftn18"> Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268; Shapcote to Navy Board, Minute of 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/266; Shapcote to Navy Board, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/267; Navy Board Minutes 23 November 1789, NA ADM106/2631; Note on reverse of Hill to Barnard, 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/259a; Navy Board to Shapcote, 23 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/267; Navy Board to Treasury, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/264; Treasury Minutes, 25 November 1789, TNA T29/61/207. There appears to be no documentary record of the instructions from the War Office to Grose and Hill; John Harris, ‘Paper Delivered by the Surgeon’s Mate of the New South Wales Corps contain<sup>g</sup> the proceed<sup>gs</sup> of Mr Gilbert’, 4 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/404-407.<br />
<br />
Gareth Cole, ‘Who Has Command? The Royal Artillerymen aboard Royal Navy Warships in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars’, and Britt Zerbe, ‘The Marine Officer is a Raw Lad, and therefore Troublesome: Royal Naval Officers and the Officers of the Marines, 1755-1797’, in Helen Doe and Richard Harding (eds.), ''Naval Leadership and Management, 1660-1950'', Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2012, pp.61-76, 77-92</ref><br />
<br />
= Legal Authority on Convict Ships =<br />
The captain’s authority over the convicts arose from the Common Law governing relations between masters and servants. This was also the foundation of the master’s authority over his crew, whom he was legally entitled to chastise physically for the security and wellbeing of the ship.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ship’s company, this arose out of the contract of employment created when the articles of agreement were signed by the crew shortly after coming on board. In the case of the convicts, the master-servant relationship arose from a legal instrument known as the contract of effectual transportation, signed by city and county gaolers and the convict contractors and ships’ masters when the convicts were brought on board. This transferred legal property in the convicts’ service to the master for the duration of the voyage, so that, in law, they were his servants until their arrival in New South Wales.<br />
<br />
Under the law of master and servant, chastisement had to be proportionate. It must be inflicted for sufficient cause; it could not be visited with undue severity. It could be inflicted for past offences, or to promote good discipline on board the ship. It was for this reason that punishment for theft and insolence on most convict transports was usually limited to confinement and a flogging of a dozen or two dozen lashes.<ref name="ftn19"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.125-127, 394-397; Francis Ludlow Holt, ''A System of the Shipping and Navigation Laws of Great Britain'', London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1824 (hereafter Holt), p.260; Richard Henry Dana, ''The Seamen’s Friend'', 4<sup>th</sup> edition, Boston: Thomas Groom and Company, 1845, pp.192-193.</ref><br />
<br />
Mutinies were quite a different matter. The ships’ officers were entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves and ensure the safety of the ship, and if this resulted in the death of a mutineer, they were protected by the privilege of self-defence. Where possible, offenders should be secured so they could be brought before an appropriate tribunal, but the justification of self-defence extended to the execution and the severe flogging of mutineers, if a conference of the ships’ officers concluded that this was necessary for the safety of the ship.<ref name="ftn20"> Abbott, op. cit., pp.127-128; Holt, op. cit., p.261; Richard Henry Dana, op. cit., pp.193-4; Richard Henry Dana, ‘Two Years Before the Mast’, in Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ''Two Years Before the Mast & Other Voyages'', New York: The Library of America, 2005, p.348.</ref><br />
<br />
Comparisons have sometimes been made between the convict trade and the slave trade, but convict transportation was closely regulated by law. No prisoner could be moved from a county gaol to a convict transport or from ship to shore, without appropriate paperwork. When, in November 1786, a young prisoner from Norwich named Susannah Holmes was brought onto the ''Dunkirk'', a convict hulk at Plymouth where she was to be held awaiting the arrival of the First Fleet transports, the captain refused to allow her ten-month old son on board. This was not because of heartless indifference, but because there were no official papers authorising him to receive the child into his establishment. It was only when the Norwich gaoler obtained a written instruction from the Home Secretary that mother and child could be reunited.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Morning Post & Daily Advertiser'', 4 December 1786.</ref><br />
<br />
In English law, a convict was a ‘freeman’ not a slave, and when the matter was eventually dealt with in an insurance case, the courts utterly rejected the suggestion that the prisoners could classified as part of the ships’ cargo.<ref name="ftn22"> The reference to a convict being a ‘freeman’ is from the judgement of Mr Justice Park in an insurance case ''Brown v Stapylton'', Court of Common Pleas, Easter Term 1827, 4 Bingham 119. Park acknowledged that a claim could be made on the life of a slave thrown overboard, a reference to the ''Zong'', but was firm in relation to convicts, he wrote ‘the authorities are clear, that there can be no estimation of the life of a freeman’.</ref> By contrast, in the Africa trade, the slaves regarded in law as a form of property who could be bought and sold, and whose lives could be insured in case of their deaths in the course of a mutiny.<br />
<br />
Following his decision in the infamous case of the ''Zong'', where the ship owners claimed the insurance on slaves deliberately thrown overboard because of an alleged fear that the ship would be lost due to a lack of water and provisions, Lord Mansfield observed:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>. . . if they [the slaves] die a Natural Death they [the underwriters] do not pay but in an Engagement [that is, a mutiny] if they are attacked and the Slaves are killed, they will be paid for them as much as for damages done for goods, and it is frequently done, just as if Horses were killed, they are paid for in the Gross, just as well as for Horses killed, but you don’t pay for Horses that die a Natural death.</nowiki><ref name="ftn23"> This statement is from the records of the Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, and does not appear elsewhere, but it certainly reflects Mansfield’s understanding of the law – see James Oldham, ‘Insurance Litigation Involving the Zong and Other British Slave Ships, 1780-1807’, ''The Journal of Legal History'', (2007) 28:3, pp.299-308 at p.316.</ref><br />
<br />
There was never any suggestion that convicts occupied the status of livestock and there was no question of them being insured as cargo.<br />
<br />
Nor was there any of the cold-blooded murder and mass rape that occurred on Stalin’s convict ships as they carried political and criminal exiles to Siberia between 1932 and 1953. One searches in vain for a single allegation of rape on board the ships that carried British and Irish convicts to Australia between 1787 and 1801 (the focus of this paper).<ref name="ftn24"> Martin J. Bollinger, ''Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West'', Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
This would mean little if the convicts lacked any means of responding to abuse, but from the First Fleet onwards, prisoners could sue the ships’ officers for loss of property, and it was not unusual for complaints about mistreatment to make their way to the Home Secretary (prior to sailing) or the Governor of the colony (upon arrival), and for formal investigations to be launched. By the end of the first decade, convicts were routinely mustered upon their arrival in Sydney Cove and asked whether they had any complaints about their gaolers.<ref name="ftn25"> The first civil court case in Australian history involved two of the convicts, a husband and wife, successfully suing one of the ships’ captains for the theft of their property – Log of the ''Alexander'', 5 April 1788, TNA ADM51/4375; NSW Court of Civil Jurisdiction: Case Papers and Minutes of Proceedings, 1788-1809, 2 July 1788, in SANSW 2/8147; Bruce Kercher and Brent Salter (eds), ''The Kercher Reports'', Sydney: The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History, 2009, pp.15-20; Henry and Susanna Cable to Mrs Dinah Cable, 17 November 1788, copy sent to the Keeper of Norfolk Castle, published in ''Norfolk Chronicle'', 18 July 1789, pp.2-3; Johnson to Nepean, 12 July 1798, in George Mackaness (ed), ‘Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson’, Part II, Australian Historical Monographs, Volume XX (New Series), No.5; John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales''<nowiki> [1790], Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.148-149. For legal commentary on the case, including the suspension of felony attaint, see David Neal, </nowiki>''The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.1-8.<br />
<br />
From the First Fleet onwards, there are numerous examples of a convict complaint making its way to the Home Secretary or the Governor, followed by an investigation. On the First Fleet, see the example of Elizabeth Barber – Paul G. Fidlon, et al (eds.), ''The Journals and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark, 1787-1792'', Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1981, p.35. Some of the convicts on the Second Fleet lodged complaints before sailing about their irons – Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10<sup>th</sup> and 26<sup>th</sup> March 1792, ''House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century'', (83) 1791-92, (hereafter ‘Accounts and Papers’) pp.259-368, at p.334.<br />
<br />
The first formal mention of a muster relates to the ''Britannia'' (1796) – ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ship ''Britannia'' from the Downs to Port Jackson and China, Commencing upon the 3<sup>rd</sup> of September 1796 & Ending upon the 30<sup>th</sup> of June 1798’ (hereafter Journal of the ''Britannia''), Dixson Library, SLNSW MSQ35, 30 May 1797. However, it is not clear that it was formalised at that time. The practice was certainly routine by the ''Minerva'' (1799) – Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), p.144.</ref><br />
<br />
When it came to mutiny, these protections were imperfect since public officials and judicial officers were reluctant to second-guess decisions made on an isolated ship in the middle of the Atlantic, but as we shall see, the legal and administrative oversight of convict ships generally served to constrain excessively abusive conduct.<br />
<br />
= Mutinies and Conspiracies =<br />
Fourteen of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies or alleged conspiracies in the period 1787 to 1801 took place or were intended to take place in the first month after sailing, the intention being to take the ship to France or North America.<ref name="ftn26"> For one of the mutinies we have no details.</ref> The only successful mutiny, that of the ''Lady Shore'', occurred seven weeks after sailing and the soldiers took the ship into La Plata, a Spanish port (in what is now Argentina). This was a risky course of action, and the Spanish authorities were at first uncertain how to treat the mutineers.<ref name="ftn27"> John Black, ''An Authentic Narrative of the Mutiny on Board the Ship Lady Shore'', Ipswich, 1798, pp.34-5.</ref> It followed that once the convict transports had entered the South Atlantic, they were generally free from any serious threat of mutiny.<br />
<br />
Among the mutinies and the conspiracies that reached an advanced stage of planning, there were two broad strategies – to attack the sentries when the convicts were on deck for exercise (by far the most common) and/or to take one of the ship’s senior officers, preferably the captain, hostage while there were inspecting the prison, and then to negotiate.<br />
<br />
There was understandable fear of an uprising among the hardened political rebels which some of these ships were carrying, and this fear was not unjustified. Of the 18 voyages where the convicts were involved, nine involved Irish convicts: the ratio of transports carrying Irish convicts in this period was only around 25 percent. Of the five actual mutinies, three involved Irish convicts, and the uprising on the ''Lady Shore'' included Irish soldiers (although it was not led by them). Four of the six proven conspiracies were also planned by Irish political prisoners. So to a considerable extent, this was an Irish problem.<br />
<br />
Soldiers played some part in two of the five mutinies and two of the six conspiracies, although they were thought to have been involved in at least two of the other conspiracies. Crew members were involved in at least three of the mutinies and conspiracies, and there were concerns of them possibly playing a role in four others. Women convicts were potentially important because they had the freedom of the deck; they were thought to have been involved in two cases, and there were suspicions of them playing a role in two more.<br />
<br />
== Mutinies ==<br />
Among the convict mutinies, the pattern was broadly similar to that of the ''Albemarle'', one of the convict transports in the Third Fleet (1791) and the first ship to experience a convict uprising. She was 13 days out of Portsmouth, and had been separated by storm from the other ships in her division. There was no advance warning. A number of convicts had been allowed on deck for exercise in the morning, at a time when most of the watch were aloft. Several of the prisoners rushed the sentries, seizing their weapons and were charging the helmsman when the captain – who happened to be on deck at the time – slipped into his cabin, grabbed his blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders in the shoulder. This caused the mutineers to abandon their attack and retreat below.<br />
<br />
All hands were called on deck, the small arms were issued, and a search party was sent below. They returned with three of the ringleaders, the first of whom confessed, probably under the threat of hanging, and named the other two as the principals, one of whom was the man that had been wounded in the affray. A conference was convened between the naval agent, the captain, the ship’s officers and men, and the soldiers, and (as the captain later wrote):<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm; this had the desired effect upon the convicts in general, who immediately sent us a letter confessing all their horrid intentions, and of taking the ship to America.<ref name="ftn28"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
Two other prisoners seem to have died as a result of their injuries. Another two were given two dozen lashes, and the informant was given three dozen, a remarkably mild response to a mutiny, where some of the ship’s officers might well have lost their lives. Two of the crew who had passed knives to the convicts (probably for cutting through their shackles), and otherwise assisted, were placed in irons and delivered to British authorities at Madeira.<ref name="ftn29"> On the convicts who seem to have died from their wounds – Extract of a Letter from Lieutenant Young, 24 April 1791, TNA T1/694/208. On the floggings and the crew members – Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the notable exception that the participants were not Irish, the insurrection on the ''Albemarle'' was typical of a convict mutiny – a sudden attack on the sentries while the prisoners were on deck for exercise, assistance from some of the crew or the guard, a successful counter-attack led by the captain and crew rather than the soldiers, confessions extracted through flogging or the threat of something worse, a formal conference of the ship’s officers and crew, a unanimous decision that prompt action must be taken for the safety of the ship, the execution of one or two mutineers, followed by a relatively moderate amount of flogging and closer confinement.<br />
<br />
== Conspiracies ==<br />
Planned mutinies that were discovered before an attack was launched were usually exposed by prisoners who were in some sense outsiders (gentleman convicts, or in one case, a Jewish prisoner), or by men who had the confidence of the ship’s officers (convicts who had been freed from their chains to work about the ship, and/or were regular informants). It might be regarded as strange that ‘trusties’ or informants would be approached by the conspirators, but it was valuable, if at all possible, to have the assistance of someone – soldier, crew member, female convict or trustie – who had the freedom of the deck. <br />
<br />
There is much less uniformity in the pattern of the conspiracies, since the details were pieced together from informants’ accounts and whatever could be ascertained through flogging the alleged conspirators. In either case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there was some measure of lies or fantasy, although in the cases described here as conspiracies, there was physical evidence of the intention to mutiny – in most cases, a significant number of cut irons or the accumulation of cutting implements. If the ship were in port, that would indicate an intent to escape, but if they were at sea, then the removal of their irons, or the accumulation of a significant number of knives and other metal objects, could only mean an intention to mutiny.<br />
<br />
The ''Barwell'' (1797) was carrying English convicts, but the conspiracy seems to have emerged among the soldiers, some of whom had been riotous since coming on board. Two of the guards (at least one of whom was Irish) had been court-martialled and sent ashore, and the sergeant of the guard had run from the ship before sailing with several of the crew. The naval agent at Portsmouth had reported to his superiors: ‘The ''Barwell''’s officers consider the guard as worthless, and as little deserving of trust as the convicts!’<ref name="ftn30"> Patton to the Transport Board, 24 October 1797, TNA ADM108/49/395.</ref><br />
<br />
Four and a half months into the voyage, two of the convicts reported that several of the soldiers had approached them about launching a mutiny. The muskets had been loaded, and they would be handed over to the convicts once they had commenced the attack. A search was conducted and a number of convicts were found to be out of irons, and the bulkhead (which functioned as the bars to the prison) had been tampered with.<br />
<br />
Following a consultation among the ship’s officers, somewhere around two dozen of the convicts were flogged, most with two or three dozen lashes, although the ringleaders were given six, eight and ten dozen. By the standards of the day (and in comparison with the punishments handed out to mutinous soldiers or marines), this was not especially severe. Three of the soldiers were flogged – several dozen lashes – and confined among the prisoners. There was also evidence against one of the two Ensigns – the most high-ranking of the soldiers on board – but it was not unequivocal, and he was confined to his quarters for the rest of the voyage.<ref name="ftn31"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37; ''R v George Bond'', Court of Vice Admiralty, Letters of Marque and Related Documents, Registrar of the Court, 1795-1812, 20 August 1798, TNA HCA1/64 & SRNSW, 5/1163, p.91ff.</ref><br />
<br />
== 5.3 Alleged Conspiracies ==<br />
With the eight alleged conspiracies, the ships’ officers were relying entirely on what they had been told by convict informants and what could be extracted from confessions obtained through flogging or the threat of the same. It was these cases that Hunter and Bigge had in mind when they wrote of false alarms and the groundless fear of combinations, although there were fewer of them than there were actual mutinies and proven conspiracies.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for us to know today, if it was then, which of these supposed conspiracies were real and which were not. Most of the actual conspiracies were first revealed to the ships’ officers in exactly the same way as the ones for which we have little or no external evidence.<br />
<br />
In several cases, there is evidence that the informants were expecting favourable treatment as a result, but given that they were placing their lives in jeopardy by informing on their fellow-prisoners, this is perhaps not surprising. And on several occasions, the alleged conspirators claimed that the master had deliberately suborned witnesses, through offers of payment or other favours, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Then as now, it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of these stories.<ref name="ftn32"> Allegations were made of witnesses suborned or threatened in cases involving the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Barwell'' (1797), and the ''Minerva'' (1798).</ref><br />
<br />
What is clear, is that the ships’ officers were terrified of a convict mutiny. In almost all cases, the alleged plot involved the immediate execution of the ship’s officers, and the fate of Captain Willcocks and his chief mate (on the ''Lady Shore'') seems to confirm that their lives were at risk, particularly when (as was almost always the case) they took the lead in resisting an attack.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning of the Australian transportation system, there was good reason to suspect that the convicts would take the ship if they could. Of the last three ships sent to North America (in 1784, in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence), two had been successfully taken by the convicts.<ref name="ftn33"> Regarding the mutiny on the ''Swift'' and the ''Mercury'' (1784), see Emma Christopher, ''A Merciless Place'', Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010, Chapter 12.</ref> And in the spring and summer of 1786, in the months before the First Fleet was commissioned, there had been two serious insurrections on the hulks, resulting in a number of deaths.<ref name="ftn34"> ‘Report of all the Convicts. . . on board the ''Fortunee'' Hulk. . . from the 20<sup>th</sup> February to 26<sup>th</sup> May 1786’, TNA T1/638; ‘Report of Convicts under Sentence of Transportation. . ., on board the ''Censor'' Hulk. . . from the 12<sup>th</sup> April to the 12<sup>th</sup> July 1786’, TNA T1/634.</ref><br />
<br />
These fears were periodically reinforced by reports of conspiracies on the smaller vessels that carried the convicts from the outer regions of Britain and Ireland to their port of embarkation. In 1789, there was a plot to take the ''Peggy'', a small vessel bringing down some prisoners from Scotland, revealed by a convict informant, Thomas Watling, who would go on to become a prominent artist in the colony.<ref name="ftn35"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 11 & 13 June 1789.</ref> The following year, there was an insurrection on a sloop carrying convicts from Lancaster to Portsmouth, which required the intervention of the navy before it was finally put down.<ref name="ftn36"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 1 February 1790, p.2.</ref> There was another conspiracy on one of the convict ships in Ireland in 1796, again revealed by one of the prisoners.<ref name="ftn37"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796</ref><br />
<br />
And of course, the taking of the ''Lady Shore'' and the murder of Captain Willcox received significant attention in the British press in May 1798 when the news of the mutiny first arrived home, and again in late 1799 when one of the mutineers who had been captured was tried and executed.<ref name="ftn38"> ''Mirror of the Times'', 23 November 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25 November 1799; ''General Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Whitehall Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 27 November 1799; ''Times'', 27 November 1799, p.3; ''Observer'', 1 December 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 4 December 1799; ''Times'', 5 December 1799, p.3; ''Morning Herald'', 5 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 20 December 1799; ''Times'', 21 December 1799, p.3; ''Oracle & Daily Advertiser'', 21 December 1799; ''Naval Chronicle'' II, July to Dec 1799, pp.629-630; ''St James’s Chronicle or British Evening Post'', 21-24 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23-25 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'' & ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25-27 December 1799.</ref><br />
<br />
As already noted, these fears were heightened when there were Irish convicts on board, particularly political insurrectionists, many of whom were hardened by civil war and what would now be regarded as terrorist activities. Joseph Holt, an Irish rebel leader who sailed with his family on the ''Minerva'' (1799), and enjoyed the freedom of the deck, told the chief mate that he was a fool to have thought of trusting him with a gun when the ship being chased by a privateer: given half a chance, he said, he would have turned it on the poop deck and freed as many of the convicts as he could.<ref name="ftn39"> T. Crofton Croker (ed.), ''Memoirs of Joseph Holt'', London: Henry Colburn, 1838, Vol. 1, pp.47-52.</ref><br />
<br />
Similar concerns were held whenever there were republicans on board. Rumours of conspiracy followed the so-called Scottish Martyrs – gentlemen exiles rather than convicts – who were sent out to New South Wales on the ''Surprize'' (1794). And while the claims that they were at the heart of conspiracies on board that ship were probably unfounded, there is no doubt that these men had been deliberately provocative in stirring up republican sentiments among the officers and passengers, and in forming improper relationships with some of the prisoners.<br />
<br />
Those ships that sailed in the immediate aftermath of the extensive naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore in 1797, the ''Lady Shore'' among them, had additional reasons to be concerned. The sailors on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) refused to sail unless a prisoner named Thomas McCann was removed from the ship. McCann had been a sailor on the ''Sandwich'' and had originally been sentenced to death for his part in the Nore mutiny. Since coming on board, he had been organising protests among the convicts over the state of their provisions, and the crew were concerned that he would lead a mutiny. Even though he was removed from the ship, his influence persisted, with the convicts continuing to organise protests when they felt that they were not being given their full rations.<ref name="ftn40">= William Noah, Voyage to Sydney in the Ship Hillsborough 1798-1799. . ., Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1978, p.19; G.E. Manwaring and Bonamy Dobree, The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and the Nore in 1797, Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2004, p.277. =<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
So while we cannot be certain which of these alleged conspiracies were real, there were often good reasons for the ships’ officers to be concerned. Hunter’s and Bigge’s criticisms need to be read with some scepticism.<br />
<br />
= Responding to a Convict Mutiny =<br />
== Suppressing the Insurrection ==<br />
The initial response to a convict mutiny was usually led by the ship’s officers and not by the military guard. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was Captain George Bowen who seized a blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders, causing the mutineers to retreat. With the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the search of the convicts’ quarters for weapons was led by the Captain, Michael Hogan, and then an attack on the prison shortly thereafter when the conspirators attempted to break out. In the case of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), it was Captain John Willcocks and his first mate who immediately responded, while (according to one report) the ranking military officer was hiding under his bed.<ref name="ftn41"> On the ''Albemarle'' (1791) – George Bowen, ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292 & HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488; Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a; Account of Robert Cock, TNA CO201/6/294-295 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-9.<br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis ''(1795) – Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.<br />
<br />
On the ''Lady Shore'' (1797) – J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, p.195</ref><br />
<br />
Captain James Stewart of the ''Ann'' (1800) was undertaking his regular inspection of the convicts’ quarters when he was seized by some of the prisoners, as part of a coordinated plan to take the ship. He escaped with the assistance of several other convicts, and while the details are scant, he was part of the group that rescued his mate and the gunner. On the ''Hercules'' (1801), Captain Luckyn Betts was the first man out of the cabin to confront the mutineers who had charged the quarter deck, and had a blunderbuss snapped in his face. (It misfired.)<ref name="ftn42"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
The affray rarely lasted long. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was a matter of seconds; on the ''Hercules'' (1801), it seems to have lasted about 15 minutes. However, there was often a period of some uncertainty before the security of the ship was fully restored. Having quelled the insurrection, the ship’s officers would search the prison, and bring up those who were suspected of being involved. They would also inspect the prisoners’ irons, to ascertain whether they had been cut. Metal implements, particularly knives, were used for sawing through the iron, and the convicts would disguise their efforts by filling the furrows with coloured wax.<br />
<br />
== Investigating Rumours ==<br />
Where the ship’s officers were informed of the conspiracy by one of the convicts, the master would sometimes wait for better evidence. On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), two of the prisoners passed a message to Captain Hogan, who had them brought aft for questioning. They revealed that the sergeant of the guard had offered to provide them with knives in return for payment. Hogan asked the ranking officer, an ensign, to have the troops fall in with their kits, which were searched. Sergeant Ellis was found to have six knives in his bag, and the ensign revealed that several days before, the sergeant had lied to him about having lost four of these knives, and he had given him two more. The touch-holes of six firelocks had also been spiked, and two pistols sent to Ellis for cleaning had been disabled. A search was conducted of the prison, but it appears that nothing of significance was found. Hogan decided to wait for stronger evidence. He cautioned his mates and the petty officers, along with some of the seamen whom he particularly trusted, to watch for any sudden attack, and he later wrote that he was keeping a strict eye on the conduct of the soldiers. It was only when he obtained further evidence from another source that Hogan began a formal interrogation of the suspects.<ref name="ftn43"> TNA CO201/13/146; HRNSW Vol.3, p.110.</ref><br />
<br />
Captain William Hingston, master of the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), reacted in a similar way. He was cautious about the information he had been supplied by a convict informant, and after arming the crew, set a trap designed to encourage the mutineers to show their hand.<ref name="ftn44"> Ebenezer Beriah Kelly, ''Autobiography'', Norwich: John W. Stedman, 1856, pp.17-19.</ref> Much the same appears to have happened on the ''Minerva'' (1799), where a number of stories were passed to the captain before any action was taken. Still uncertain as to the seriousness of the plot, the ship’s officers revolved to lock the supposed ringleaders in a strong room rather than flogging them to extract confessions. More specific stories emerged later in the voyage, when stronger action was taken.<ref name="ftn45"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), pp.83-84, 88-89.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) one of the passengers, a junior official going out to take up a post at New South Wales, reported rumours from among the convicts. Captain William Wilson reacted in a measured way and tightened security.<ref name="ftn46"> For example, Wilson had a barricade constructed across the deck, and allowed the passengers to organise their own watch – Journal of the ''Royal Admiral'', IOR L/MAR/B/338-I and ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 20 & 23 June 1800.</ref> On the ''Hercules'' (1801), where there was later a violent insurrection, the master made no response when the first stories emerged.<ref name="ftn47"> See the evidence of Thomas Trotter, Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court, 6 July 1802, CO201/21/245-246.</ref> The master of the ''Atlas'' (1801), which sailed at the same time as the ''Hercules'', suspected that the convicts had poisoned the guard, a highly improbable scenario. Captain Richard Brooks was jumping at shadows, but he investigated the supposed conspiracy over several weeks, trying to make sense of the limited evidence available to him, all the time allowing the convicts on deck (carefully chained) for daily exercise.<ref name="ftn48"> Journal of the ''Atlas'', IOR L/MAR/B/27E, various entries from 27 February to 11 April 1802.</ref><br />
<br />
It was common for the ships’ officers to flog the convicts in order to extract a confession, and punishment would often cease once a prisoner had admitted his role and implicated others. An officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) explained to this brother that following the revelation of the conspiracy: ‘We got upon deck the ringleaders, to the number of forty, who, after a severe punishment, confessed the whole.’<ref name="ftn49"> Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.</ref> Captain Hogan wrote: ‘When each man received punishment, he gave information against others, evading as much as possible the part he had in it himself. . .’<ref name="ftn50"> TNA CO201/13/150a; HRNSW Vol.3, p.109.</ref><br />
<br />
A British official at Madeira wrote about the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) when the ship called there briefly to offload the two sailors suspected of being involved. He reported that when the first of the ringleaders was brought on deck, he was threatened with immediate hanging: ‘he, from terror, declared that if they would pardon him he would discover the whole plot, which he accordingly did’. He named another two men as the ringleaders, one of whom had been wounded in the affray.<ref name="ftn51"> Robert Cock to the Duke of Leeds, 13 May 1791, TNA CO201/6/294-295; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-449.</ref><br />
<br />
The probative value of evidence extracted through flogging or the threat of hanging, is of course highly questionable, and such practices had ceased to be employed in the British criminal justice system. The author has been unable to find any precedents for this extraordinary practice on board these merchant ships, which was not challenged by any of the authorities at the time.<br />
<br />
== The Ship’s Council ==<br />
There appears to have been a convention that masters would convene a conference of the ship’s officers, and ideally, the passengers and crew members as well, before making any firm decisions about the response to a mutiny, particularly when a decision involved the execution of one of the mutineers. There also seems to have been a practice of including a relatively senior officer from another ship, if one was in company, or that individuals independent of the ship’s officers would be involved.<br />
<br />
There was no legal obligation in English maritime law to consult with the ship’s officers before disciplining the crew, but according to Abbott (1802):<br />
<br />
. . . the master should, except in cases requiring his immediate interposition, take the advice of the persons next below him in authority, as well as to prevent the operation of passion in his own breast, as to secure witnesses to the propriety of his conduct. For the master on his return to this country may be called upon by action at law, to answer to a mariner, who has been beaten or imprisoned by him, or by his order, in the course of a voyage; and for the justification of his conduct, he should be able to shew not only that there was a sufficient cause for chastisement, but also that the chastisement itself was reasonable and moderate, otherwise the mariner may recover damages proportionate to the injury received.<ref name="ftn52"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.126-127.</ref><br />
<br />
The masters of East Indiamen were expected to bring an offender before a ‘consultation’ of officers prior to issuing any punishments, and there appears to have been a widespread convention that British seafarers would not be discharged in foreign ports without formal consultation.<ref name="ftn53"> On the former, see Peter Earle, ''Sailors: English Merchant Seamen, 1650-1775'', London: Methuen, 2007, p.154.</ref> The first known example of this is the Strange fur-trading expedition to the north-west coast of America in 1785-86 (in the ''Captain Cook'' and the ''Experiment'') where the owners, David Scott & Co of Bombay, wanted a council of the officers to be held if unruly men were to be put ashore at a foreign port:<br />
<br />
. . . & as You have not the aid of martial Law, we have to desire Your discharging every officer and man that may show the least tendency to subvert discipline, at the first English Port or at China. In such case we would advise Your holding a Council of the Officers, & entering their report on the Log Book; as we feel an interest in every man who embarks on the expedition, it would be pleasing to see that no person was discharged but in consequence of the voices of the Officers.<ref name="ftn54"> David Scott & Co, ‘Sailing Directions to James Strange Esq., Director of the Exploring Expedition to the No. West Coast of America and towards the North Pole’, 7 December 1785, in ''Records of Fort St. George: James Strange’s Journal and Narrative of the Commercial Expedition from Bombay to the Northwest Coast of America'', Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1982, p.35. </ref><br />
<br />
And legislation passed in 1799 for the further regulation of the slave trade, prescribed that the masters of ships engaged in that trade were not to discharge unruly mariners without first consulting with one of His Majesty’s ships of war.<ref name="ftn55"> Abbott, pp.128-129.</ref><br />
<br />
While there was no comparable body of law or practice relating to the transportation of convicts, it is clear that most of the masters acknowledged the convention that they should consult with their officers, at least when exemplary punishments were required following a mutiny. What is perhaps of greater interest, is that over time, this formalised into a legal obligation.<br />
<br />
As previously noted, there was no legal authority to try and punish mutineers, be they crew members, passengers, soldiers or convicts; any execution, flogging or confinement had to be undertaken as an act of self-defence. It is for this reason that most accounts of these ships’ conferences explicitly state that they executed the prisoner for the preservation of the ship and her crew. It was also conventional to report that such decisions were unanimous.<ref name="ftn56"> Examples include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Minerva'' (1798), and the ''Ann'' (1800).</ref><br />
<br />
Thus, on the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the master convened a conference that included the naval agent (a naval lieutenant assigned to the convoy for monitoring the navigation), the ship’s officers and crew, and the soldiers. The naval agent specifically noted in his account that there were no other ships in company to hold a formal trial. According to the captain:<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm. . .<ref name="ftn57"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the First Mate wrote:<br />
<br />
It was therefore agreed unanimously, by all the free persons on board, that the ringleaders should be punished with severity, which was put into execution. . . Had these steps not been taken the ship could never have been secure, as it evidently appeared the convicts, headed by the serjeant, had bound themselves by oath to murder the captain and the principal officers.<ref name="ftn58"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.107-108.</ref><br />
<br />
While we lack a detailed account of several ships, there appear to have been ship’s conferences on all of the vessels where mutinies or conspiracies occurred, except three. One of these was the ''Lady Shore'', where the mutiny was successful, but in the other two cases – the ''Britannia'' (1796), the master was strongly censured and on the ''Hercules'' (1801), found guilty of manslaughter for the failure to consult. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the alleged conspiracies, since in some cases, the reaction was mild, but we know of ship’s councils in two of the eight cases.<br />
<br />
It was usual for there to be a judicial inquiry when these ships arrived in Sydney, particularly where men had died, where there had been a significant amount of flogging, and/or where there was a formal protest by one of the convicts or military officers. As long as there had been a conference and unanimity, it was rare to second-guess the decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of the mutiny or conspiracy. However, it was also rare for the authorities in Sydney to impose further punishment on the conspirators, even where the ship’s officers had deferred making a decision until their arrival.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Britannia'' (1796), there had been extensive flogging and some of those punished had subsequently died. A judicial inquiry was held and, as the Judge Advocate reported in his journal: <br />
<br />
As these punishments had been inflicted by the direction of the master, without consulting any of the officers on board as to the measure of them he was highly censured. . .<ref name="ftn59"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates. . . Charges Imputed to Captain Dennett’, 13 June 1797, TNA CO201/14/31ff; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board the ''Britannia'', 5/1156, No.13, Reel 1929 or COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
The second case was that of the ''Hercules'' (1801), where Captain Betts was prosecuted in the Court of Vice Admiralty, for the deaths of 12 or 13 convicts in the course of the insurrection, and for executing one of the ringleaders in the immediate aftermath. He was cleared of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of the mutiny – indeed, very little evidence was taken in relation to this charge, so it appears that the court did not regard it as a matter requiring serious attention.<br />
<br />
However, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter on the second charge and fined £500, a substantial sum of money. Based on the evidence at the trial, it seems likely that all of the officers agreed with his course of action, but he had failed to conduct a formal consultation; and the execution had possibly occurred an hour after the mutiny was over (although there was conflicting evidence on this point). The sentence was suspended for confirmation by the Home Secretary, and the ultimate outcome is unknown.<ref name="ftn60"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254.</ref><br />
<br />
== Punishment ==<br />
While the execution, flogging and/or confinement of mutineers were strictly-speaking not punishments, but rather acts of self-defence necessary to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew, contemporaries were not always careful in making this distinction.<br />
<br />
=== Executions ===<br />
<br />
There were executions on four of the 11 ships where an actual mutiny or conspiracy was involved. Two of the ringleaders of the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) were hung at the fore-yard arm following a ship’s council. Lieutenant Robert Parry Young, the naval agent, was clearly uncomfortable with the decision, writing to the Admiralty that it was for the general good and the safety of the ship: ‘I had no authority for so doing but the moment required a severe example’ and he hoped their Lordships would support him if there were any bad consequences. ‘It was with difficulty I could prevent the ship’s company from executing more of them from revenge, for had the convicts not been repulsed, the massacre would have been considerable on our part.’<ref name="ftn61"> Young to Stephens, 24 April 1791, TNA HO28/8/99-100a; TNA T1/694; TNA ADM106/2638, 7 July 1791; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-8.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the principals was shot in the presence of all the convicts, who had been assembled on deck for the purpose. Captain Betts shot one of the ringleaders on the ''Hercules'' (1801), not so much as a considered act designed to suppress any further intentions of mutiny, but on an adrenalin high, egged on by the other officers on the quarter deck.<ref name="ftn62"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
We have few details of what transpired on the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), but the decision was taken by the naval agent, following what was described as ‘the necessary inquiry’. The one brief account we have of the episode says that many of the convicts were out of irons, but there is no mention of an actual uprising. There appears to have been some kind of judicial inquiry upon arrival in New South Wales, since the Judge Advocate wrote that the Agent:<br />
<br />
. . . thought it indispensable to the safety of the ship to cause an instant example to be made, and ordered one of the convicts who was found out of irons to be executed that night. Others he punished the next morning; and by these measures, as might well be expected, threw such a damp on the spirits of the rest, that he heard no more during the voyage of attempts or intentions to take the ship.<ref name="ftn63"> David Collins, ''An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales''<nowiki> [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975 (hereafter Collins), Vol.1, p.261.</nowiki></ref><br />
<br />
It is difficult for us to imagine why such an extreme response was considered necessary, but it needs to be placed in context. These men were bound together in a small society, surrounded by water, thousands of miles from the nearest British authorities. The punishment for ‘piracy’, the legal term for a mutiny at sea, was hanging on the shoreline at Execution Dock. The British Navy would go to great lengths to track down mutineers who successfully took one of their ships, sending the ''Pandora'' all the way out to Tahiti, in an attempt to capture the men who had taken the ''Bounty''.<ref name="ftn64"> Geoffrey Rawson, ''Pandora’s Last Voyage'', London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd,'' ''1963.</ref><br />
<br />
In some ways, the early Australian convict transports were in a similar position to the wagon trains that crossed the American prairies in the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where the emigrants were obliged to make and enforce their own system of justice once they had moved beyond the boundaries of the state. When confronted with a killing by one of their number, the emigrants were obliged to organise a search party, constitute a court, make a decision on guilt or innocence, agree on a form of punishment and carry out the same.<br />
<br />
As with merchant ships, they relied on a form of popular justice, meeting as a body politic to make decisions rather than deferring to the notional leader of the company. And, as with the merchant ships, it was not unusual for them to appoint strangers – individuals from other companies, or people they had met along the trail – to perform the functions of judge and jury.<ref name="ftn65"> John Phillip Reid, ''Policing the Elephant: Crime, Punishment, and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail'', San Marino, California: Huntingdon Library, 1997, pp.110, 117-132.</ref><br />
<br />
Expulsion was an option, but whether from a sense of justice or a concern for their fellow emigrants, there were numerous occasions on which they resigned themselves to the necessity of taking the offender’s life. As a journal-keeper on one of these wagon trains wrote:<br />
<br />
It was justice conscientiously administered, without law – an action necessary under the circumstances. . . It was a matter the necessity of which was deplorable, but the execution of which was imposed upon those who were on the spot and uncovered the convincing facts.<ref name="ftn66"> Ibid p.196.</ref><br />
<br />
There were, however, a number of significant differences between American wagon trains and British merchant ships. The ships’ masters were expected, as a matter of convention and ultimately of law, to organise a conference of all the officers before making life and death decisions. In taking a life, they were expected to have acted in the immediate aftermath of a violent uprising, and for the safety of the ship; unlike the emigrants on the Overland Trail, they were not permitted to organise a criminal trial and execute justice in their own right. Unlike the wagon trains, merchant ships engaged in the convict trade were bound by a formal system of justice, and they were subject to the criminal law once they arrived at their destination.<br />
<br />
=== Flogging ===<br />
<br />
Flogging was relatively common on merchant and naval ships, for the maintenance of order, and it was generally necessary on ships carrying convicted criminals to the Antipodes. It was a disciplinary measure, similar to the corporal punishment imposed (at the time) by a parent on a child, a teacher on a student or a master on a servant. In the case of insurrections, it was also justified as a means of self-defence to restore the safety of the ship.<br />
<br />
In most cases, floggings were confined to the ringleaders, or to convicts who had been caught out of irons, and the number of lashes was relatively few. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), for example, once two of the ringleaders had been hung, punishments were administered to a handful of others – three dozen to one and two dozen to another two. This was an extraordinarily mild response, given the seriousness of the threat to the ship.<ref name="ftn67"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the ringleaders was shot and another was given 250 lashes. That was a serious punishment, but properly administered it should not have threatened the man’s life. Floggings of this kind were frequently handed out to soldiers and marines for offences that were much less serious.<ref name="ftn68"> Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Barwell'' (1797), the risk of a mutiny was very real, with a significant number of the convicts out of irons. The ship’s journal is difficult to read, but it appears that several dozen men were given two or three dozen lashes, a mild punishment, however one of the ringleaders was given ten dozen, another eight and several six. This was a measured response and it would not have been considered inappropriate by the authorities in Sydney or at home.<ref name="ftn69"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37.</ref><br />
<br />
The punishment on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) was more extensive. As noted above, there was clear evidence in this case that the sergeant of the guard had been collecting knives so the convicts could cut their irons, and he had disabled many of the sentries’ weapons. A significant number of convicts had freed themselves from their shackles. It will be recalled that Captain Hogan was slow in responding, waiting until he had clear evidence that the conspiracy was real, and he interrogated the suspected mutineers over several days, collecting detailed statements. Forty-two men and eight women were punished, in varying degrees. There was a second conspiracy around four weeks later, and on this occasion, around forty of the leaders were ‘severely punished’.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not explain how many lashes they were given. The only occasion where a number is mentioned is two dozen lashes given to one of the soldiers, a mild punishment. The subsequent inquiry by the Judge Advocate concluded:<br />
<br />
. . . we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn70"> ‘Inquiry re Conspiracy. . . ‘, SRNSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17, p.387; TNA CO201/13/160a.</ref><br />
<br />
=== Confinement and Removal from the Ship ===<br />
<br />
Where military officers, gentlemen convicts or crew members were involved, and/or where the evidence was unclear, ships’ captains were much less willing to resort to violent punishment and suspected conspirators were confined in some way. <br />
<br />
''The ship’s company:'' The crew members on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) who were thought to have assisted with the mutiny were confined and offloaded at Madeira: there is no evidence that they were flogged, and it is unlikely that they were later punished in any other way. This was not unusual: when sailing in company, it was common for unruly crew members to be removed from the ship and placed on board the commodore, or one of the other vessels in the convoy.<ref name="ftn71"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport’, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Surprize'' (1794), Captain Campbell had become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of his Chief Mate, a Mr Macpherson. At a time when there were already allegations of a conspiracy among the convicts, some of the crew claimed that Macpherson had deliberately set the sails so as to cause her to drop back in the fleet. Campbell spoke to the commodore (''HMS Suffolk'') and had him removed from the ship. While the Scottish Martyrs sought to make a great deal of this, it is clear that Macpherson was openly associating with the republican exiles, and had suffered some kind of breakdown; he had lost the confidence of his captain. There was nothing untoward about Campbell’s response: two weeks later, the master of the ''Ponsborne'', an East Indiaman sailing in company with the ''Surprize'', sent three men, including the boatswain’s mate, on board the ''Suffolk'' for disorderly behaviour, receiving three others in their place.<ref name="ftn72"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SRNSW 5/1156, pp.2, 4 & 12<nowiki>; </nowiki>Patrick Campbell at TNA CO201/12/188-189 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.860-1; Journal of the ''Ponsborne'', IOR L/MAR/B/462J, 15 May 1794.</ref><br />
<br />
''The military guard:'' One of the soldiers on the ''Boddington'' (1793) was placed in irons for the duration of the voyage, with the expectation that he would be punished in the colony. There is no evidence that he was.<ref name="ftn73"> Kent to Nepean, 18 March 1793, TNA HO42/25/160-161a.</ref> On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), Sergeant Ellis – against whom there was clear evidence of his complicity in the plot – was confined on the poop deck and then flogged to extract a confession, although the number of lashes is unknown. One of the privates was also flogged, twice, receiving two dozen the second time, but another two were merely confined and one of these had his head shaved.<ref name="ftn74"> TNA CO201/13/150a, 156, 158a; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.103-109.</ref><br />
<br />
''Convicts:'' While Captain Campbell believed that two of the Scottish Martyrs were at the bottom of the conspiracy on board the ''Surprize'' (1794), he was conscious that their treatment was being closely followed in the British press, and they were simply confined. Campbell wrote to the ship‘s owners:<br />
<br />
I have taken every means in my power to be cautious in the treatment of so many descriptions of people, and it is reasonable to suppose from the connections of Palmer and Skirving, the two apparent ringleaders of this Plot, that every exertion will be used in their favour, and to slander those whose lives they meant to take but whatever you may hear you may rest perfectly satisfied that I have taken such cautious Steps as to put it out of the power of the most malicious to injure me or any of the Civil Officers appointed by Government. . .<ref name="ftn75"> Copy of Capt. Campbell’s letter from Rio Janeiro to Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, n.d., TNA CO201/12/186.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Minerva'' (1799), Captain Salkeld responded to the initial rumours of a conspiracy by locking 14 of the supposed mutineers in a strong room. The stories persisted, but Salkeld was unable to find hard evidence of a conspiracy. The surgeon, John Washington Price, described their dilemma:<br />
<br />
Though we are sensible of his guilt, yet we could not procure sufficient evidence against him (those who could give it being afraid to come forward), we permit him to remain unpunished, but two of his confederates who have been in the habit of both receiving and forwarding messages from and to him have been put in double irons with a chain passing from each through the bars that are a midship in the prison. And there we leave them to commune together and to deliberate on the best method to effect their liberation.<ref name="ftn76"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, pp.120-121.</ref><br />
<br />
= Accountable in Law =<br />
As previously observed, the masters of convict transports were legally accountable for the manner in which they responded to a mutiny or a conspiracy on board their ships. Prior to the formal establishment of a Court of Vice Admiralty in 1798, the Governors relied on the Judge Advocate and a bench of magistrates to conduct administrative inquiries into mutinies, conspiracies and allegations of maltreatment on board the convict transports.<br />
<br />
''Unreported Inquiries:'' There is no formal record of such an inquiry for the ''Albemarle'' (1791), where two of the mutineers had been executed, but the Judge Advocate wrote a detailed account of the mutiny in his journal, which almost certainly means that he conducted some kind of investigation.<ref name="ftn77"> Collins, Vol.1, p.151.</ref> The same applies to the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), where one of the many convicts out of irons had been executed.<ref name="ftn78"> Collins, Vol.1, p.261.</ref><br />
<br />
A number of papers have survived relating to events on the ''Surprize'' (1794). Shortly after their arrival in Sydney Cove, two of the Scottish Martyrs submitted a petition to the Governor, insisting that Captain Campbell had obtained confessions and testimonies through promises, bribes, threats and torture, and proposing that criminal charges be instituted against him. Campbell provided the Governor with a contemporaneous account of the events on board the ship, and the evidence that had been collected throughout the course of his inquiries, seeking the prosecution and punishment of two of the Martyrs and their followers.<br />
<br />
There is no record of these matters in the journal of the Judge Advocate, and the Acting Governor, Francis Grose, and Governor Hunter (when he arrived) seem to have dealt with the matter themselves, refusing to take any action against either side.<ref name="ftn79"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SANSW 5/1156; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.862-873, 879-882.</ref> One of the Martyrs later published a self-serving account, and historians have been inclined to accept their version of events, but we are no better equipped to ascertain the truth today than Governor Hunter was in 1794.<ref name="ftn80"> Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
''Formal Judicial Inquiries:'' The first detailed transcript of a judicial inquiry relates to the flogging of convicts on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795). Captain Hogan lodged a formal ‘protest’ concerning the mutiny shortly after arrival, but the formal investigation was initiated as the result of a written complaint by the corporal of the guard who had been confined for his supposed part in the conspiracy. He accused Hogan of ‘inhumane treatment’ and false imprisonment. The inquiry was chaired by the Judge Advocate, David Collins, assisted by the Acting Colonial Surgeon, William Balmain, in their capacity as Justices of the Peace.<br />
<br />
Balmain conducted some kind of preliminary investigation, collecting statements in the form of affidavits, and the hearing itself seems to have lasted for a single day. Collins and Balmain reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
We beg leave to lay before you the accompanying depositions and papers, from a careful examination of which we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn81"> ‘Proceedings on Board the Ship ''Marquis Cornwallis'': In the Matter of Capt. Hogan’s Treatment of the Convicts’, SANSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17 pp.387-398; TNA CO201/13/154-160a; ‘Conspiracy to Seize the ''Marquis Cornwallis''’, HRNSW Vol.3, pp.102-111.</ref><br />
<br />
Another inquiry was conducted the following year by three justices of the peace into the floggings on the ''Britannia'' (1796). Once again, there was some form of preliminary investigation to marshal the evidence, and testimony was heard over five days. The magistrates reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
After maturely considering the Evidence on both sides that has been brought before us on this Occasion, We are unanimously of Opinion that Captain Dennett’s Conduct in punishing the convicts in the manner he did for conspiring to take the Ship was imprudent and ill-judged, in as much as he did not take the sense of the Officers and Ship’s Company, individually, as to the steps necessary to be adopted for the preservation of the Ship and the lives of the People therein, for altho’ they might have been all present, and many of them assisting on that occasion, yet their not having been formally consulted renders it questionable whether the Captain’s proceedings would have met their unanimous approbation, and so far his Conduct in this instance may be regarded as bordering on too great a degree of severity. But we also clearly concur of Opinion that the Surgeon (Mr Byers) was beyond all the other Bystanders particularly culpable in not stedfastly protesting against the Cruelties which he charges Captain Dennett with and was therefore inexcusably negligent and indifferent in the performance of his duty, and consequently in an eminent degree, accessory to the inhumanities he complains of, such is our Opinion of the first charge. . .<br />
<br />
Since this was an administrative process, they also recommended reform of the transportation system:<br />
<br />
Before we conclude, we here beg leave to offer to his Excellency our Opinion that all Ships coming to this port with Transports should have on board an Officer of the Crown, who should be invested with proper power and authority, as well for the conducting of the Ship as the particular inspection and direction of the management of the Convicts on Board.<ref name="ftn82"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/52; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277.</ref><br />
<br />
''Court of Vice Admiralty:'' The only trial in the Court of Vice Admiralty in this period involved the prosecution of Captain Luckyn Betts of the ''Hercules'' (1801) for the unlawful deaths of 13 convicts in the court of the mutiny, and the deliberate execution of Jeremiah Prendergass, one of the ringleaders, shortly after the insurrection had been suppressed. Evidence was heard over two days, and as previously noted, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter:<br />
<br />
The Court after mature deliberation are satisfied that a mutiny actually existed on board the ship Hercules of which the prisoner Luckyn Betts was Master, do therefore acquit him of the first Count in the Indictment but find him guilty of Manslaughter on the Second And do Sentence him to pay a Fine of £500 to be appropriated to the Orphan Fund of this Colony, and that the said Luckyn Betts be imprisoned until the said Fine of £500 be paid.<ref name="ftn83"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254 at p.254; ‘The Trial of Captain Betts’, HRNSW Vol.4, pp.810-818 at p.818. </ref><br />
<br />
The prosecution was based on the evidence of the senior military officer on board, supported by his subordinates, and Betts’ account was corroborated by the ship’s officers. There seems little doubt that at the time, the military officers had supported Prendergass’s execution, which may account for the finding of manslaughter rather than murder.<br />
<br />
This was probably the most serious convict mutiny in the history of the Australian transportation system, and the court showed little interest in the deaths which occurred in the process of suppressing it, in spite of evidence indicating that some of these occurred in remote corners of the ship in the final stages of the insurrection.<br />
<br />
The court was most concerned to establish the circumstances surrounding Prenderass’ death, and focused on the time which had elapsed since the retaking of the quarterdeck and the failure of Betts to hold a ship’s council. The defence witnesses insisted that the safety of the ship had not yet been secured, and Betts sought to defend his actions by describing his emotional state at the time:<br />
<br />
A Blunderbuss had been Snapt at my Head the Consequence of which the Head of Providence had averted. I had just heard the solemn declaration of a dying man, who was reproaching Prendergass for being the Sole Author of the Mutiny. Prendergass had but a little time before been detected with an Adze in his Hand Attempting the Life of one of the Seamen. . . the deck was Strewed with dead Bodies, the Confusion was great, the Agitation of my Mind was more than Language can describe, and perhaps, unless You, Gentlemen, can for a Moment conceive Yourselves in my Situation, it will be impossible for you to have any thing like and adequate Idea of it.<ref name="ftn84"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
Again, this may help to explain why the finding was not murder. Governor King suspended the sentence, and deferred to the authority of the Home Secretary, however the ultimate outcome of the matter is not clear. The Transport Board did not consider that he had breached his contractual obligations.<ref name="ftn85"> Transport Board to King, 14 November 1803, ''Historical Records of Australia'', Series 1, Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1914 (hereafter HRA) Series 1, Vol.4, p.425.</ref> <br />
<br />
''Prosecution of Mutineers:'' There was little interest in pursuing the mutineers once they had arrived in New South Wales. Given the violence of some of the insurrections, and the seriousness with which mutiny was regarded in British courts, this comes as a surprise. None of the convicts who were involved in the mutinies on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) and the ''Hercules'' (1801), the most violent of the uprisings, were tried upon their arrival in New South Wales. Some of the supposed conspirators on the ''Barwell'' (1797) were tried and acquitted.<ref name="ftn86"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.467; TNA HCA1/64.</ref> Five of the seamen on the ''Hercules'' (1801) were charged ‘with force and arms upon the High Seas of piratically feloniously and wickedly combining to stir up bring about and make revolt and mutiny and did contribute to seize the ship and murder the officers and passengers’, but the evidence was not strong and the prosecutions were abandoned after the first of the men were acquitted.<ref name="ftn87"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court. . .’, 14 July 1802, TNA CO201/21/255-257.</ref><br />
<br />
British courts were reluctant to revisit the decisions made by ships’ captains a thousand miles away, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. They were often faced with widely differing accounts of what happened by parties who had developed deep suspicion, and in some cases, loathing, for one another in the course of the voyage. Criticism tended to focus on procedural matters – the time elapsed since the security of the ship was restored, and whether the captain had consulted with his officers.<br />
<br />
But unlike wagons trains on the Overland Trail, convict transports were governed by law, and it is clear that ships’ captains moderated their behaviour out of a concern at possible criminal prosecution and, in the case of well-connected gentlemen convicts, potential scrutiny by the press.<br />
<br />
= Too Great a Degree of Severity? =<br />
== Kindness and Humanity ==<br />
In some cases, however, we encounter captains who sailed from England with the expressed hope of not needing to punish any of the convicts in the course of the voyage. This seems to have been the case on the'' Minerva (1799) ''where, after they had received allegations of yet another conspiracy, Surgeon Price wrote:<br />
<br />
We have had very great hopes, and indeed wished very much, that in no instance during the voyage. . . we should have occasion to punish any of these too unfortunate men, but their hopes were frustrated, and our wishes proved abortive.<ref name="ftn88"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, p.88.</ref><br />
<br />
The master of the'' Friendship (1799)'', Hugh Reid, took his wife with him on the voyage, and prior to sailing from Ireland, she noted in her journal that:<br />
<br />
Captain Reid thought that it would be possible to take the prisoners to the place of their destination without having an occasion intervene for inflicting on them punishment; or any severity beyond that of attending to their safe custody. . .<ref name="ftn89"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', September 1819, pp.238-239.</ref><br />
<br />
Reid had been Chief Mate on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', and when he and his wife dined with his former master, Michael Hogan, at the Cape, he reported that the prisoners had behaved very well, and that ‘they had put it out of his power or that of his officers to lay a finger on them: and that he was in hopes of landing them at the place of their destination without introducing the machinery of punishment’. Hogan – who was clearly more comfortable with using the lash if it was required – was surprised.<ref name="ftn90"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', November 1819, p.455.</ref><br />
<br />
On their return to England, Mrs Reid wrote that her husband received letters from relatives of the convicts they had carried out:<br />
<br />
It was particularly gratifying to my husband to receive letters from the friends of those poor men whom embarked from Ireland, expressive of their sincere thanks for the great kindness and humanity shewn to them on the passage, and observing that they had mentioned that the only hardship they experienced was the necessary confinement, which the laws of their country and the safety of the ship required.<ref name="ftn91"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal, ''December 1820, p.577.</ref><br />
<br />
What is significant is not so much that the convicts’ relatives sent these letters, but that Hugh and Mary Ann Reid were grateful to have received them. This was how Captain Reid wanted to be known.<br />
<br />
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the transportation system, but in general, convicts on a voyage to the Antipodes were treated well. When the women of the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) asked the ship’s surgeon if they could substitute tea and sugar for some of their daily serving of salted meat, he made a recommendation to the contractor, who passed it on to the Navy Board with his warm support. From that time forward, all female convicts on Botany Bay ships were issued with a ration of tea and sugar throughout the voyage. And when it was realised that a number of the women were pregnant, the government organised a supply of linen, which Richards arranged to have made up. On their lying-in, convict women were supplied not only with clouts and pilchers for their newborn children, but bedgowns and nightcaps for themselves. This is a very different account of the transportation system than the lurid tales that amateur and family historians like to tell.<br />
<br />
Of course, the living conditions in a convict prison could be deeply unpleasant, particularly when prisoners were sent on board with typhus and/or the ship encountered high seas and stormy weather, but those were circumstances beyond the control of the ships’ officers.<br />
<br />
== An Intrinsically Pathological Situation ==<br />
There is one ship, however, where the level of violence used in response to the conspiracy indicates that a deeply pathological situation had developed. The atmosphere on board the ''Britannia'' (1796) was tense from the outset – shortly before she sailed from Cork, there had been an attempted mutiny on one of the convict ships, although the details are few, and it is unclear which vessel was involved.<ref name="ftn92"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796; ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 16 September 1796, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
A significant number of the men had been associated with a revolutionary movement known as the Defenders, which relied on the administration of oaths to maintain secrecy. Some of these men had participated in a violent battle with the Irish Militia in May of the previous year, and thus were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence. Others had been involved in lynch mobs and conspired to assassinate public officials.<ref name="ftn93"> Barbara Hall, ''Death or Liberty: The Convicts of the Britannia, Ireland to Botany Bay, 1797'' (hereafter Hall), Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Nor were the ship’s officers reassured by the soldiers who had been sent on board. Several of them had come directly from the Savoy prison, four had run from the ship at Cork, they were insolent and one had threatened the cook with a knife. They had proved unreliable as sentries, one falling asleep on watch, and another getting drunk with the seamen.<ref name="ftn94"> Hall, pp.237, 239; Journal of the ''Britannia'', IOR L/MAR/B/285XX, 8 & 14 November, 23 December 1796, 2 January 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
When Captain Dennett inquired of the resident agent at Cork whether the government had any instructions as to how to deal with such an unruly shipload of prisoners, he was told that there were none. He was to act as circumstances might require. Dennett later explained:<br />
<br />
Left then alone in a situation entirely new, I was determined if the conduct of those committed to my charge would but permit to make them as comfortable as it was possible, but at the same time if they behaved ill to have them punished in such a manner as to deter others from being guilty of similar offences. I have always been of opinion that severity in some instances is lenity in general.<ref name="ftn95"> ‘Captain Dennott’s Address to the Court’, 21 June 1797, HRNSW Vol.3, p.275</ref><br />
<br />
Upon their arrival at Rio de Janeiro, the convicts were transferred to an island in the harbour for the sake of their health. While the details are scant, it is evident that several of the convicts attempted an escape, attacking the guard and trying to steal their muskets.<ref name="ftn96"> TNA CO201/14/42a, 43, 47a & HRNSW Vol.3, p.257, 258, 266; Journal of the ''Britannia'', 17, 21 & 22 February 1797, and evidence attributed to Kit Hughes on 25 March 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
Several days after sailing from port, one of the men who had been liberated because of good behaviour, came aft and advised the captain that the convicts in the fore prison had been administering oaths and were plotting to take the ship. Having had the story confirmed by a second prisoner, Dennett set about flogging the conspirators to make them confess – six men were given 300 lashes each in the course of the afternoon, and after some resistance, they implicated others. At the end of the day, the fore prison was thoroughly searched and a large number of cutting implements were uncovered – knives, saws, scissors, spike nails, staples and iron hoops. There was no question that an attack was being planned.<br />
<br />
Dennett now set about punishing men for their involvement in this conspiracy and in the attempted escapes at Rio de Janeiro. The second day began with the flogging of two men who had been given 300 lashes the day before. They were given another 500 each. When the cat ceased to open their skin, Dennett had the boatswain make up another. By the time that day was over, another 5,700 lashes had been administered to 20 men, and another 1,575 were given the following day. In all, more than 8,000 lashes administered to 31 men over the course of two and a half days.<br />
<br />
One can imagine what it must have been like in the prison of the ''Britannia'', listening to the sounds emanating from the deck above. On the third day of flogging, one of the convict women threw herself overboard. She was already suffering from mental illness, but her suicide was a reaction to the events of the previous days. One of the soldiers followed her the next day, ‘out of a fit of insanity’. Both of the men who had been given 800 lashes died in the weeks that followed, and three more besides. When the ''Britannia'' arrived in Sydney Cove two months later, several of the prisoners had to be sent to hospital, including one man who had been given 700 lashes.<ref name="ftn97"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/31ff; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board, SANSW 5/1156, or Copy at COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
As previously noted, a judicial inquiry was established into the events on board the ''Britannia'', which concluded that the captain’s behaviour was ‘bordering on too great a degree of severity’. It also found that the surgeon superintendent, the government’s agent on board the ship, was ‘particularly culpable in not steadfastly protesting against the Cruelties’ practised by Captain Dennett.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Stanford Experiment (1973), we understand much better what happened on the ''Britannia''. In reflecting on their experiment at the time, Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney wrote that the anti-social behaviour of the students who had acted as guards ‘were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals’.<ref name="ftn98"> C. Haney, W. Banks and P. Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'', (1973) 1, pp.69-97, at p.90.</ref> The sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib in 2003 reminds that these lessons have still not been learned.<br />
<br />
Zimbardo and Haney have argued that to a significant extent, this behaviour is situational: ‘the ‘psychologic’ of the environment was more powerful than the benign intentions or predispositions of the participants.’ No doubt this explains some of what happened on the ''Britannia'' in 1797.<br />
<br />
But others have pointed to role that dehumanisation plays in the abuse prisoners and prisoners of war, the systematic devaluation of human attributes in outgroups.<ref name="ftn99"> See, for example, G. Tendayi Viki, Daniel Osgood and Sabine Phillips, ‘Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war’, ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', (2013) 49, pp.325-328.</ref> There may also have been some of this in the reaction to the conspiracy on the ''Britannia'' in the middle of the South Atlantic on the 23<sup>rd</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> and 25<sup>th</sup> of March 1797. Among the ships’ officers and the public authorities in New South Wales, there was not a great deal of respect for the Irish and there was significant fear of political rebels such as the Defenders. In writing of the conspiracy on the ''Boddington'' (1793), the Judge Advocate, David Collins referred to ‘the wild lawless Irish’, and in reflecting on the events on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), he wrote:<br />
<br />
It appeared that the men were for the most part of the description of people termed Defenders, desperate, and ripe for any scheme from which danger and destruction were likely to ensue. The women were of the same complexion; and their ingenuity and cruelty were displayed in the part they were to take in the purposed insurrection, which was the preparing of pulverised glass to mix with the flour of which the seamen were to make their puddings. What an importation!<ref name="ftn100"> Collins, Vol.1, pp.262, 380-381.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor Hunter wrote to the Home Secretary of ‘such horrid characters as the people called Irish Defenders, who. . . I wish had been either sent to the coast of Africa or some place as fit for them’.<ref name="ftn101"> Hunter to Portland, 12 November 1796, TNA CO201/13//218a.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor King referred to the ‘mutinous Irish’ on the ''Hercules''.<ref name="ftn102"> King to Hobart, 9 May 1803, HRA Series 1, Vol.4, p.85.</ref> And a newspaper report in Sydney concerning one of the men who arrived on that ship claimed that ‘he was well known in Ireland during the rebellion for his abominable depravities. . .’<ref name="ftn103"> ''Sydney Gazette'', 19 January 1806, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
What is striking, however, about the responses to the mutinies and conspiracies on board convict ships in the early years of the transportation system, is how rare such an abusive response was.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
No doubt there were false alarms, but one in four convict transports carrying men in the period 1787 to 1801 experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, and if we include the mutinies on the hulks and the smaller vessels which carried convicts to the port of embarkation, then the ships’ officers did need to exercise great care in the management of the male convicts, particularly where Irish political prisoners were concerned. As the tragic fate of the captain and the chief mate on the ''Lady Shore'' demonstrated, there was a high cost to pay when the authorities under-estimated the prospects of an uprising.<br />
<br />
Hunter was right to say that fears of insurrection sometimes excused ‘the enforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline’, but these occasions were rare. In general, the punishment of convicts in the passage to New South Wales was moderate, even when violent mutinies were concerned, and in several cases, we encounter masters who dreamed of carrying the prisoners to their destination without the need to punish a single one.<br />
<br />
While the courts were reluctant to second-guess events which took place some thousands of miles away at sea, there is evidence that the prospect of subsequent scrutiny served to moderate the response to an insurrection. The situation of a convict on board a transport bound for the Antipodes was very different from that of a slave bound for the Americas, or an emigrant on the Overland Trail.<br />
<br />
When mutinies did occur, the ships’ officers were quite willing to execute one of the ringleaders to ensure the safety of the ship, or to flog a number of the conspirators. But with only two exceptions, they paused to seek counsel from the ships’ officers, military officers, and free passengers, and there is only one occasion on which the conspiracy became ‘a convenient cloak for cruelty’.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mutinies]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=579Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-06T14:23:40Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Provisions for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Mutinies on Convict Transports]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| [[Mutinies]]<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies_on_Convict_Transports&diff=578Mutinies on Convict Transports2016-07-06T10:06:19Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>Paper delivered to the 7<sup>th</sup> International Congress of Maritime History,</center><br />
<br />
<center>Perth, Western Australia on 27 June 2016</center><br />
<br />
<center>by Gary L. Sturgess </center><br />
<br />
= Abstract =<br />
Of the 47 ships that carried convicts to New South Wales between 1787 and 1801, one in four experienced a mutiny, actual or planned, by the convicts and/or the soldiers. For the most part, this was an Irish problem, with the conspiracies involving hardened political rebels with antipathy to the British Crown.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the course of these mutinies and conspiracies, the violence employed in suppressing them, the conditions that contributed to the fear of mutiny and the use of excess violence, and subsequent legal oversight.<br />
<br />
= False Alarms? =<br />
In a paper written on the ship as he returned home from New South Wales in 1801, recently-retired Governor John Hunter observed that rumours of planned mutinies on convict ships were sometimes used to justify abusive behaviour:<br />
<br />
. . . the creating false alarms of mutiny or insurrection, has some times excused the inforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline, <nowiki>and this, rather than real disease, caused in this ship [the </nowiki>''Hillsborough''] so great a proportion. . . to die. . . The alarm of mutiny is a very convenient cloak for cruelty; and if the prisoners were better treated, there would be less occasion to dread it; but it is an excuse for every thing wicked that a bad man can devise.<ref name="ftn1"> John Hunter, ''Remarks on the Causes of the Colonial Expense of the Establishment of New South Wales, &c'', London, 1802, p.48.</ref><br />
<br />
Two decades later, Commissioner John Bigge, who had been sent out to investigate the transportation system on behalf of the British government, wrote that ‘the fear of combinations amongst the convicts to take the ship, is proved by experience of later years to be groundless. . .’<ref name="ftn2"> John Bigge, ‘Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed by the House of Commons, 19 June 1822, ''House of Commons Parliamentary Papers'', p.3.</ref><br />
<br />
Hunter had never spent time on a convict transport: he had originally sailed out with the First Fleet, but he had done so on the quarter deck of ''HMS Sirius'', one of two naval vessels accompanying the expedition, and the risk of a mutiny on that voyage was minimised by the large number of marines being sent out to the new settlement. Bigge had sailed to New South Wales on the ''John Barry'', a copybook of a convict voyage, with an experienced surgeon superintendent and three teachers, very little sickness, no deaths, and no mutiny or rumour thereof. He had no knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in the early years of transportation.<br />
<br />
In fact, over the first decade and a half of the Australian transportation system, from 1787 until 1801, there were 11 mutinies and conspiracies – more than one in four of the ships that carried male convicts and/or soldiers to New South Wales in that period. Of these, there were five actual mutinies (one of them successful) and six conspiracies that were sufficiently advanced for clear evidence to exist of the mutineers’ intentions (such as large numbers of cut irons or the accumulation of implements that could be used for that purpose).<br />
<br />
There were a further eight ships where rumours of a planned conspiracy provoked some kind of intervention on the part of the ships’ officers, and where the seriousness of the situation is open to debate. What cannot be denied, however, is that many of the mariners and free passengers who sailed on these voyages were terrified of an uprising by the convicts and/or the soldiers (many of the latter having been recently been released from gaol themselves).<br />
<br />
Knowing that James Willcocks, the master of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), would shortly be killed by mutinous soldiers on the outward voyage, it is difficult not to be moved by his increasingly desperate pleas for intervention by the authorities before his ship sailed from Portsmouth. Willcocks was no coward: when his ship had been taken by a French privateer on her previous voyage, he had insisted on remaining on board and had convinced his captors that they should release her.<ref name="ftn3"> Journal of the ''Lady Shore'', IOR L/MAR/B/429B, 19-22 July 1796.</ref><br />
<br />
But as he prepared to sail for New South Wales in April 1797 with a shipload of female convicts and a detachment of British, French and Irish recruits being sent out to the settlement, Willcocks was terrified at the incendiary behaviour of some of the soldiers, and asked for their firearms to be taken away. When their commanding officer, Colonel Francis Grose, came on board to investigate, his concerns were dismissed and Willcocks was accused of being violent and overbearing. The unfortunate man resigned himself to his situation and set about preparing his will.<ref name="ftn4"> J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, pp.188-189; King to the Transport Board, 23 May 1797, TNA ADM108/46/324; Willcocks to King, 27 May 1797, TNA HO42/40/134-136a. His will is at TNA Prob 11/1307.</ref><br />
<br />
Passengers on the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) were mortified when they discovered that 140 of the convicts were being admitted on deck for fresh air at one time. Some of the prisoners had boasted that they would take the ship, and the passengers organised their own watch to supplement the one provided by the guard. James Wilshire, who was going out to the settlement to take up a position in the commissariat, wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Before we left Spithead they said if they should take the ship from us, they would make every one walk the plank. The Captain is a very religious and I believe a very good man, but I am afraid he shows too much lenity to such vile depraved characters, as I am afraid that all the comforts and attention for their good which possibly can be shown will, [at] the first opportunity, be inhumanly repaid by putting us under the greatest tortures of death which possibly be described. . .</nowiki><ref name="ftn5"> James Wilshire, ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 22 June 1800.</ref><br />
<br />
There was no mutiny on the ''Royal Admiral'', and we will never know whether the convicts were serious in their boasts about taking the ship. What cannot be denied is that James Wilshire and his fellow passengers were in fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
Questions of security and freedom mattered – too much liberty and some of the prisoners would mutiny or escape; too little and more of them would die from sickness and disease. If the ships’ officers routinely over-estimated the prospect of an uprising and confined the prisoners too much, they were responsible, in part, for the high mortality rates on the early convict voyages. If the majority of conspiracies were fictions, dreamed up by convict informants to curry favour with their gaolers (and if junior military officers, naval lieutenants and/or naval surgeons would have been less affected by such fantasies), then the contractual system used for transporting convicts prior to 1815 was inherently flawed. If the legal and administrative framework governing these contracts was incapable of preventing excessively violent and abusive responses to mutinies and conspiracies, then government is to be condemned for relying on a system that was incapable of protecting the prisoners in the passage to Botany Bay.<br />
<br />
This paper explores the security arrangements on board the early convict transports (1787-1801), each of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies and alleged conspiracies that occurred during that period, and the manner in which the ships’ officers responded.<ref name="ftn6"> The mutinies include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), the ''Ann'' (1800) and the ''Hercules'' (1801).<br />
<br />
The conspiracies were on the ''Boddington'' and the ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), the ''Britannia'' (1796), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) and the ''Minerva'' (1798).<br />
<br />
The alleged conspiracies were on the ''Scarborough'' (1787 & 1790), the ''Britannia'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800), and the ''Atlas'' (1801). </ref><br />
<br />
= Managing through Contract =<br />
The overwhelming majority of convicts shipped to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors, and in the first three decades – from 1787 until 1815 – the ships’ officers were responsible for their day-to-day management.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the claims of some historians, the First Fleet was managed under same the arrangements, with the difference that the commodore of the fleet (and Governor-elect of the new settlement), Captain Arthur Phillip, had over-riding authority, and chose to intervene in the management of the prisoners throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn7"> On the misunderstanding, see Robert Hughes, ''The Fatal Shore'', London: Collins Harvill, 1987, pp.144-5, based on Charles Bateson, ''The Convict Ships, 1787-1868'', 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., 1985, pp.10-11, 20. Statements about how the contractual system actually worked are based on a detailed analysis of the documentary record for the First Fleet (1787) and the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789), available from the author.</ref><br />
<br />
In the early years, naval lieutenants usually accompanied some of the ships, as ‘agents for transports’: their experience had traditionally been limited to regulating the loading and navigation of naval transports, and while they were charged with the additional responsibility for monitoring the management of the prisoners, they were not qualified for this role.<ref name="ftn8"> No particular instructions were given to the naval agent on the First Fleet, but the agent who accompanied the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) had responsibility for ‘watching over the proceedings of the contractor and his agents’ and ensuring that ‘proper attention’ was paid to the convicts. (Sydney to the Treasury, 24 April 1789, TNA HO36/6/253-256 & TNA T1/667/398-399, 404; Steele to Stephens, 3 June 1789, TNA T27/40/257)<br />
<br />
The agent on the Second Fleet (1790) was to see that the women were kept separate from the men, and to ensure that they were not abused or ill-treated. He was to visit the ships whenever the weather permitted and to ensure that the prisons were washed and aired, and that the convicts were kept clean and had their clothes changed and washed. He was also to see that justice was done to the prisoners, but his authority extended only to keeping a journal and reporting on the masters’ behaviour upon arrival. (Rose to the Navy Board, 15 August 1789, TNA T1/672/209 & TNA T27/40/344; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)<br />
<br />
On the Third Fleet (1791), the agents were simply to ensure that the charter party was complied with, and to keep a journal. (Navy Board to Lieut. Samuel Blow, 25 January 1791, Alexander Hood, ‘Papers relating to Captain Alexander Hood's command of the ''Hebe'', Channel and Irish Sea: relating to the Convict Transport ''Queen''’, 18 November 1790 to 21 April 1791, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM) MKH/9, MS68/099)<br />
<br />
The instructions for the ''Kitty'' (1793) were similar to those of the Second Fleet. (Warrant issued to Lieut. Daniel Woodriff, 4 January 1793, TNA ADM106/2640)<br />
<br />
No more naval agents were appointed until the ''Earl Cornwallis'' (1800), with authority superintend the care, management and victualling of the convicts. (Transport Board to Hunter, 7 August 1800, TNA ADM108/67/270) This was the last occasion on which they were used.</ref><br />
<br />
Following the high mortality on the Second Fleet, naval surgeons were appointed as ‘surgeon superintendents’ on several of the ships, again responsible for oversight rather than direct management. They enjoyed mixed success, and with the outbreak of war in 1793, naval surgeons could no longer be spared for such duties.<ref name="ftn9"> Surgeon superintendents were appointed to the ''Royal Admiral'' and ''Bellona'' (1792), ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), ''Surprize'' (1794), ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), ''Ganges'' and ''Britannia'' (1796), ''Lady Shore'' (1797) and ''Minerva'' (1799), and then no more until the ''Northampton'' (1814). The ''Boddington'', the ''Sugar Cane'', the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', the ''Britannia'' and the ''Minerva'' all carried Irish convicts, and the Irish government persisted with surgeon superintendents long after the British government had ceased to use them. The status of the surgeon on the ''Ganges'' is unclear: he was going out to take up a position in the colony, and was assigned responsibilities for the convicts as well. The master of the ''Lady Shore'' did not intend to carry his own surgeon, presumably because the women would have the freedom of the deck, and he felt he should not be responsible for the health of the soldiers. The government appointed a surgeon instead.<br />
<br />
No details have survived of the instructions for the surgeon superintendents on the ''Royal Admiral'' and the ''Bellona''. On the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', they were to assist the ships’ surgeons ‘in the necessary attendance on the sick’, and enforce ‘a compliance with the several stipulations made with the contractor. . . for the maintenance & supply of the convicts & guard during their continuance on board’. The masters were contractually bound to obey all orders of the surgeon superintendents for the convicts’ welfare. (Late Draft of the Contract for the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', TNA CO201/7/346-9; ‘<nowiki>Draft [Nepean] to W. Richard Kent’, 12 December 1792, TNA CO201/7/420-422</nowiki>)<br />
<br />
We have no details of the instructions given to the subsequent surgeon superintendents, but it is clear from the inquiry into the floggings on the ''Britannia'', that the surgeon of that ship had not been given clear authority over the master. (F.M. Bladen (ed.), ''Historical Records of New South Wales'', 7 Volumes, Sydney: Government Printer, 1893-1901 (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 3, pp.235, 276-7, 488)</ref> It was not until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 that naval surgeons could once again be used, although it would take several years for them to assume full responsibility for the day-to-day management of the prisoners, and some chose to defer to strong-willed captains.<br />
<br />
Thus, from 1787 until a little after 1815, convicts were managed through a chain of authority cascading down from the Home Office to the Navy Board (and after 1794, the Transport Board), from them to the convict contractors and/or the ship owners, and from owners to masters. These early ships were, in essence, floating prisons, managed under contract, with the contractors’ agents responsible for the health and well-being of the convicts as well as the navigation and management of the vessel.<br />
<br />
= Security on Convict Ships =<br />
Prisoners on board convict ships were not confined as a form of punishment, but in order to prevent mutinies and escapes. This was consistent with 18<sup>th</sup> century notions of imprisonment, where the inmates enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the gaol throughout the day. In Britain, prison inmates were generally not provided with meals by their gaolers, receiving instead a county allowance and purchasing their own provisions. Men were often allowed to associate with the women throughout the day, which helps to explain why so many female convicts came on board the convict ships with a young child or in a state of pregnancy.<ref name="ftn10"> Wayne Joseph Sheehan, ‘The London Prison System, 1666-1795’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975, Chapter 4; Margaret DeLacy, ''Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850'', Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
Convict women were freed from their irons as soon as they were brought on board, and it was only the refractory who were confined throughout the course of the voyage. In many cases (until 1819 at least), they were permitted to form sexual relationships with the ships’ officers and (less often) the crew – there was, as yet, no appreciation that, as long as they occupied the subordinate status of prisoners, the women might not be able to make a truly independent decision in such matters.<br />
<br />
Boys were rarely ironed, sick convicts were usually freed from their shackles, and it was common for 20 or 30 of the more trustworthy men to be given the freedom of the deck to assist in sailing the ship and providing cleaning, cooking and nursing services for their fellow prisoners.<br />
<br />
In these early years, the male convicts were generally kept in single irons – shackles around each ankle connected by a chain – and when the weather permitted, they were allowed on deck for several hours a day for exercise, while the prison was cleaned and fumigated. On smaller ships, the convicts’ quarters were located on the lower deck, and on vessels with three decks, they were assigned to the lowest, known as the orlop deck. In wet weather and high seas, and in extreme cold, there was no alternative but to leave the convicts locked down in their quarters.<br />
<br />
Unruly convicts might be loaded with a second set of irons, referred to as ‘double irons’, and in some cases with ‘heavy irons’. If they were particularly troublesome, they might be confined in shackles joined with a bar iron (as opposed to a chain), a neck brace, handcuffs and/or thumbscrews (the latter designed to disable and not a form of torture as some have assumed), or ‘stapled’ to the deck. In the early years of the Australian transportation system, it was only the First Fleet – for the reasons already mentioned – where the male convicts were freed from their irons throughout the entire voyage.<br />
<br />
Security was usually provided by a small detachment of soldiers. When plans for the Australian transportation system were first being developed, Lord Sydney and his under-secretary, Evan Nepean, imagined that the contractors might provide the necessary guards, but this idea was quickly abandoned when it was realised how many marines would accompany the First Fleet.<ref name="ftn11"> ‘Draught to the Lords of the Treasury’, 18 August 1786, TNA CO201/2/3-10; Steele to Commissioners of the Navy, 26 August 1786, Public Record Office, TNA T27/38/336-337; Navy Board Minutes, 18 October 1786, TNA ADM106/2622.</ref><br />
<br />
There were no soldiers on the next voyage, since the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) carried only female convicts, and when plans were being made for the Second Fleet, the Home Office expected (yet again) that the guards would be provided by the contractors. This proposal was abandoned when shipbrokers made it clear that they would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance (because of a concern among underwriters about the prospect of mutiny).<ref name="ftn12"> Wellbank Sharp & Brown to Navy Board, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/232; Navy Board to Thomas Steele, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/231; Treasury to Navy Board, 29 October 1789, TNA T29/61/73.</ref> Plans to raise a new regiment for service in New South Wales were by then well advanced, and these were expedited so that a small detachment (of 15-20 men) could sail on each of the three convict transports that made up the Second Fleet.<br />
<br />
With the outbreak of war, the government had better things to do with its soldiers than to send them to the far side of the globe, and it became commonplace for half a dozen deserters to be taken out of the Savoy Prison and sent on board the convict transports, where they were handed a uniform and musket.<ref name="ftn13"> Lewis to The Honorable Colonel Fox, Chatham Barracks, 31 December 1792, TNA WO4/845/73.</ref><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, this practice caused deep concern among the masters of the convict transports. These men were often unruly, and the ships’ officers feared that they would conspire with the convicts to take the ship. Soldiers were significant players in two of the five mutinies, at least two and possibly four of the six conspiracies, and at least one of the alleged conspiracies in the ships in the period with which this paper is concerned.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Surprize'' (1794), the deserters were initially placed down among the convicts, and subsequently released and appointed as sentries on the main hatch which led into the prison.<ref name="ftn14"> Lewis to Sir Hew Dalrymple, Chatham Barracks, 13 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/92-3; Lewis to John King, 15 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/93; Campbell to the Navy Board, 17 February 1794, TNA T1/728/198-199 & HO35/14; Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797, pp.16-17.</ref> The 74 soldiers on the ''Lady Shore'' were not there to provide security since the ship was carrying female convicts and only two men. But they did include a number of French prisoners of war (who had claimed that they were royalists), some Irish recruits (always regarded as suspect) and several deserters brought directly from the Savoy.<ref name="ftn15"> ‘Return of a Detachment of the New South Wales Corps, embarked at Gravesend on board the Lady Shore, under the Command of Ensign Minchin, 27<sup>th</sup> March 1797’, based on remarks made by Corporal John Spice, TNA WO40/16/60; Statement of Simon Murchison, 21 January 1798, TNA ADM108/19/144 & HO42/44/90a; </ref><br />
<br />
Following the mutiny on that ship, the contractors and ship owners were reluctant to have a military detachment on board, and for several years some of the masters were paid to provide their own security. However, this practice had ceased by 1803, and thereafter soldiers were always employed.<ref name="ftn16"> There were no soldiers on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Ann'' (1800) or the ''Perseus'' and ''Coromandel'' (1802). The use of contracted guards seems to have ended with the ''Rolla'' (1802) – Minutes of the Transport Board, 14 December 1801, TNA ADM108/70/334.</ref><br />
<br />
Contrary to what has often been assumed, the soldiers were not responsible for managing the convicts day-to-day, and they had no say over when the convicts were allowed on deck, what chains they wore, and whether they would be punished. Until sometime after 1815, it was the ships’ officers, and particularly the master and the surgeon, who were responsible for these matters.<br />
<br />
The First Fleet was somewhat different. Phillip gave a great deal of authority to the naval surgeons and assistant surgeons who were accompanying him out to live in the settlement, assigning one to each of the transports carrying the largest numbers of male convicts. He also instructed the marine officers to work in collaboration with the ships’ masters in making decisions about the convicts’ security, and we can find a number of examples of this happening throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn17"> John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales'', Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.70-71; Stephens to Smith, 24 February 1787, TNA ADM2/1178/151; Stephens to Collins, 2 March 1787, National Marines Museum, Portsmouth (hereafter NMaM) Arch11/52/2, p.166.</ref><br />
<br />
When the NSW Corps joined the Second Fleet, the senior officers attempted to take control of convict security, imitating what they (wrongly) believed to have been the situation on the First Fleet. This resulted in considerable tension between the ships’ officers and the officers of the NSW Corps, which was quickly resolved in favour of the former. The principal reason for this was that the contractors and ships’ captains had provided a financial bond of £40 for each convict, guaranteeing that they would be delivered to their specified destination, but the Navy Board also recognised that at the end of the day, the responsibility for the security of the ship must lie with the master.<ref name="ftn18"> Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268; Shapcote to Navy Board, Minute of 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/266; Shapcote to Navy Board, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/267; Navy Board Minutes 23 November 1789, NA ADM106/2631; Note on reverse of Hill to Barnard, 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/259a; Navy Board to Shapcote, 23 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/267; Navy Board to Treasury, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/264; Treasury Minutes, 25 November 1789, TNA T29/61/207. There appears to be no documentary record of the instructions from the War Office to Grose and Hill; John Harris, ‘Paper Delivered by the Surgeon’s Mate of the New South Wales Corps contain<sup>g</sup> the proceed<sup>gs</sup> of Mr Gilbert’, 4 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/404-407.<br />
<br />
Gareth Cole, ‘Who Has Command? The Royal Artillerymen aboard Royal Navy Warships in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars’, and Britt Zerbe, ‘The Marine Officer is a Raw Lad, and therefore Troublesome: Royal Naval Officers and the Officers of the Marines, 1755-1797’, in Helen Doe and Richard Harding (eds.), ''Naval Leadership and Management, 1660-1950'', Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2012, pp.61-76, 77-92</ref><br />
<br />
= Legal Authority on Convict Ships =<br />
The captain’s authority over the convicts arose from the Common Law governing relations between masters and servants. This was also the foundation of the master’s authority over his crew, whom he was legally entitled to chastise physically for the security and wellbeing of the ship.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ship’s company, this arose out of the contract of employment created when the articles of agreement were signed by the crew shortly after coming on board. In the case of the convicts, the master-servant relationship arose from a legal instrument known as the contract of effectual transportation, signed by city and county gaolers and the convict contractors and ships’ masters when the convicts were brought on board. This transferred legal property in the convicts’ service to the master for the duration of the voyage, so that, in law, they were his servants until their arrival in New South Wales.<br />
<br />
Under the law of master and servant, chastisement had to be proportionate. It must be inflicted for sufficient cause; it could not be visited with undue severity. It could be inflicted for past offences, or to promote good discipline on board the ship. It was for this reason that punishment for theft and insolence on most convict transports was usually limited to confinement and a flogging of a dozen or two dozen lashes.<ref name="ftn19"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.125-127, 394-397; Francis Ludlow Holt, ''A System of the Shipping and Navigation Laws of Great Britain'', London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1824 (hereafter Holt), p.260; Richard Henry Dana, ''The Seamen’s Friend'', 4<sup>th</sup> edition, Boston: Thomas Groom and Company, 1845, pp.192-193.</ref><br />
<br />
Mutinies were quite a different matter. The ships’ officers were entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves and ensure the safety of the ship, and if this resulted in the death of a mutineer, they were protected by the privilege of self-defence. Where possible, offenders should be secured so they could be brought before an appropriate tribunal, but the justification of self-defence extended to the execution and the severe flogging of mutineers, if a conference of the ships’ officers concluded that this was necessary for the safety of the ship.<ref name="ftn20"> Abbott, op. cit., pp.127-128; Holt, op. cit., p.261; Richard Henry Dana, op. cit., pp.193-4; Richard Henry Dana, ‘Two Years Before the Mast’, in Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ''Two Years Before the Mast & Other Voyages'', New York: The Library of America, 2005, p.348.</ref><br />
<br />
Comparisons have sometimes been made between the convict trade and the slave trade, but convict transportation was closely regulated by law. No prisoner could be moved from a county gaol to a convict transport or from ship to shore, without appropriate paperwork. When, in November 1786, a young prisoner from Norwich named Susannah Holmes was brought onto the ''Dunkirk'', a convict hulk at Plymouth where she was to be held awaiting the arrival of the First Fleet transports, the captain refused to allow her ten-month old son on board. This was not because of heartless indifference, but because there were no official papers authorising him to receive the child into his establishment. It was only when the Norwich gaoler obtained a written instruction from the Home Secretary that mother and child could be reunited.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Morning Post & Daily Advertiser'', 4 December 1786.</ref><br />
<br />
In English law, a convict was a ‘freeman’ not a slave, and when the matter was eventually dealt with in an insurance case, the courts utterly rejected the suggestion that the prisoners could classified as part of the ships’ cargo.<ref name="ftn22"> The reference to a convict being a ‘freeman’ is from the judgement of Mr Justice Park in an insurance case ''Brown v Stapylton'', Court of Common Pleas, Easter Term 1827, 4 Bingham 119. Park acknowledged that a claim could be made on the life of a slave thrown overboard, a reference to the ''Zong'', but was firm in relation to convicts, he wrote ‘the authorities are clear, that there can be no estimation of the life of a freeman’.</ref> By contrast, in the Africa trade, the slaves regarded in law as a form of property who could be bought and sold, and whose lives could be insured in case of their deaths in the course of a mutiny.<br />
<br />
Following his decision in the infamous case of the ''Zong'', where the ship owners claimed the insurance on slaves deliberately thrown overboard because of an alleged fear that the ship would be lost due to a lack of water and provisions, Lord Mansfield observed:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>. . . if they [the slaves] die a Natural Death they [the underwriters] do not pay but in an Engagement [that is, a mutiny] if they are attacked and the Slaves are killed, they will be paid for them as much as for damages done for goods, and it is frequently done, just as if Horses were killed, they are paid for in the Gross, just as well as for Horses killed, but you don’t pay for Horses that die a Natural death.</nowiki><ref name="ftn23"> This statement is from the records of the Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, and does not appear elsewhere, but it certainly reflects Mansfield’s understanding of the law – see James Oldham, ‘Insurance Litigation Involving the Zong and Other British Slave Ships, 1780-1807’, ''The Journal of Legal History'', (2007) 28:3, pp.299-308 at p.316.</ref><br />
<br />
There was never any suggestion that convicts occupied the status of livestock and there was no question of them being insured as cargo.<br />
<br />
Nor was there any of the cold-blooded murder and mass rape that occurred on Stalin’s convict ships as they carried political and criminal exiles to Siberia between 1932 and 1953. One searches in vain for a single allegation of rape on board the ships that carried British and Irish convicts to Australia between 1787 and 1801 (the focus of this paper).<ref name="ftn24"> Martin J. Bollinger, ''Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West'', Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
This would mean little if the convicts lacked any means of responding to abuse, but from the First Fleet onwards, prisoners could sue the ships’ officers for loss of property, and it was not unusual for complaints about mistreatment to make their way to the Home Secretary (prior to sailing) or the Governor of the colony (upon arrival), and for formal investigations to be launched. By the end of the first decade, convicts were routinely mustered upon their arrival in Sydney Cove and asked whether they had any complaints about their gaolers.<ref name="ftn25"> The first civil court case in Australian history involved two of the convicts, a husband and wife, successfully suing one of the ships’ captains for the theft of their property – Log of the ''Alexander'', 5 April 1788, TNA ADM51/4375; NSW Court of Civil Jurisdiction: Case Papers and Minutes of Proceedings, 1788-1809, 2 July 1788, in SANSW 2/8147; Bruce Kercher and Brent Salter (eds), ''The Kercher Reports'', Sydney: The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History, 2009, pp.15-20; Henry and Susanna Cable to Mrs Dinah Cable, 17 November 1788, copy sent to the Keeper of Norfolk Castle, published in ''Norfolk Chronicle'', 18 July 1789, pp.2-3; Johnson to Nepean, 12 July 1798, in George Mackaness (ed), ‘Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson’, Part II, Australian Historical Monographs, Volume XX (New Series), No.5; John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales''<nowiki> [1790], Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.148-149. For legal commentary on the case, including the suspension of felony attaint, see David Neal, </nowiki>''The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.1-8.<br />
<br />
From the First Fleet onwards, there are numerous examples of a convict complaint making its way to the Home Secretary or the Governor, followed by an investigation. On the First Fleet, see the example of Elizabeth Barber – Paul G. Fidlon, et al (eds.), ''The Journals and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark, 1787-1792'', Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1981, p.35. Some of the convicts on the Second Fleet lodged complaints before sailing about their irons – Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10<sup>th</sup> and 26<sup>th</sup> March 1792, ''House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century'', (83) 1791-92, (hereafter ‘Accounts and Papers’) pp.259-368, at p.334.<br />
<br />
The first formal mention of a muster relates to the ''Britannia'' (1796) – ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ship ''Britannia'' from the Downs to Port Jackson and China, Commencing upon the 3<sup>rd</sup> of September 1796 & Ending upon the 30<sup>th</sup> of June 1798’ (hereafter Journal of the ''Britannia''), Dixson Library, SLNSW MSQ35, 30 May 1797. However, it is not clear that it was formalised at that time. The practice was certainly routine by the ''Minerva'' (1799) – Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), p.144.</ref><br />
<br />
When it came to mutiny, these protections were imperfect since public officials and judicial officers were reluctant to second-guess decisions made on an isolated ship in the middle of the Atlantic, but as we shall see, the legal and administrative oversight of convict ships generally served to constrain excessively abusive conduct.<br />
<br />
= Mutinies and Conspiracies =<br />
Fourteen of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies or alleged conspiracies in the period 1787 to 1801 took place or were intended to take place in the first month after sailing, the intention being to take the ship to France or North America.<ref name="ftn26"> For one of the mutinies we have no details.</ref> The only successful mutiny, that of the ''Lady Shore'', occurred seven weeks after sailing and the soldiers took the ship into La Plata, a Spanish port (in what is now Argentina). This was a risky course of action, and the Spanish authorities were at first uncertain how to treat the mutineers.<ref name="ftn27"> John Black, ''An Authentic Narrative of the Mutiny on Board the Ship Lady Shore'', Ipswich, 1798, pp.34-5.</ref> It followed that once the convict transports had entered the South Atlantic, they were generally free from any serious threat of mutiny.<br />
<br />
Among the mutinies and the conspiracies that reached an advanced stage of planning, there were two broad strategies – to attack the sentries when the convicts were on deck for exercise (by far the most common) and/or to take one of the ship’s senior officers, preferably the captain, hostage while there were inspecting the prison, and then to negotiate.<br />
<br />
There was understandable fear of an uprising among the hardened political rebels which some of these ships were carrying, and this fear was not unjustified. Of the 18 voyages where the convicts were involved, nine involved Irish convicts: the ratio of transports carrying Irish convicts in this period was only around 25 percent. Of the five actual mutinies, three involved Irish convicts, and the uprising on the ''Lady Shore'' included Irish soldiers (although it was not led by them). Four of the six proven conspiracies were also planned by Irish political prisoners. So to a considerable extent, this was an Irish problem.<br />
<br />
Soldiers played some part in two of the five mutinies and two of the six conspiracies, although they were thought to have been involved in at least two of the other conspiracies. Crew members were involved in at least three of the mutinies and conspiracies, and there were concerns of them possibly playing a role in four others. Women convicts were potentially important because they had the freedom of the deck; they were thought to have been involved in two cases, and there were suspicions of them playing a role in two more.<br />
<br />
== Mutinies ==<br />
Among the convict mutinies, the pattern was broadly similar to that of the ''Albemarle'', one of the convict transports in the Third Fleet (1791) and the first ship to experience a convict uprising. She was 13 days out of Portsmouth, and had been separated by storm from the other ships in her division. There was no advance warning. A number of convicts had been allowed on deck for exercise in the morning, at a time when most of the watch were aloft. Several of the prisoners rushed the sentries, seizing their weapons and were charging the helmsman when the captain – who happened to be on deck at the time – slipped into his cabin, grabbed his blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders in the shoulder. This caused the mutineers to abandon their attack and retreat below.<br />
<br />
All hands were called on deck, the small arms were issued, and a search party was sent below. They returned with three of the ringleaders, the first of whom confessed, probably under the threat of hanging, and named the other two as the principals, one of whom was the man that had been wounded in the affray. A conference was convened between the naval agent, the captain, the ship’s officers and men, and the soldiers, and (as the captain later wrote):<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm; this had the desired effect upon the convicts in general, who immediately sent us a letter confessing all their horrid intentions, and of taking the ship to America.<ref name="ftn28"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
Two other prisoners seem to have died as a result of their injuries. Another two were given two dozen lashes, and the informant was given three dozen, a remarkably mild response to a mutiny, where some of the ship’s officers might well have lost their lives. Two of the crew who had passed knives to the convicts (probably for cutting through their shackles), and otherwise assisted, were placed in irons and delivered to British authorities at Madeira.<ref name="ftn29"> On the convicts who seem to have died from their wounds – Extract of a Letter from Lieutenant Young, 24 April 1791, TNA T1/694/208. On the floggings and the crew members – Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the notable exception that the participants were not Irish, the insurrection on the ''Albemarle'' was typical of a convict mutiny – a sudden attack on the sentries while the prisoners were on deck for exercise, assistance from some of the crew or the guard, a successful counter-attack led by the captain and crew rather than the soldiers, confessions extracted through flogging or the threat of something worse, a formal conference of the ship’s officers and crew, a unanimous decision that prompt action must be taken for the safety of the ship, the execution of one or two mutineers, followed by a relatively moderate amount of flogging and closer confinement.<br />
<br />
== Conspiracies ==<br />
Planned mutinies that were discovered before an attack was launched were usually exposed by prisoners who were in some sense outsiders (gentleman convicts, or in one case, a Jewish prisoner), or by men who had the confidence of the ship’s officers (convicts who had been freed from their chains to work about the ship, and/or were regular informants). It might be regarded as strange that ‘trusties’ or informants would be approached by the conspirators, but it was valuable, if at all possible, to have the assistance of someone – soldier, crew member, female convict or trustie – who had the freedom of the deck. <br />
<br />
There is much less uniformity in the pattern of the conspiracies, since the details were pieced together from informants’ accounts and whatever could be ascertained through flogging the alleged conspirators. In either case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there was some measure of lies or fantasy, although in the cases described here as conspiracies, there was physical evidence of the intention to mutiny – in most cases, a significant number of cut irons or the accumulation of cutting implements. If the ship were in port, that would indicate an intent to escape, but if they were at sea, then the removal of their irons, or the accumulation of a significant number of knives and other metal objects, could only mean an intention to mutiny.<br />
<br />
The ''Barwell'' (1797) was carrying English convicts, but the conspiracy seems to have emerged among the soldiers, some of whom had been riotous since coming on board. Two of the guards (at least one of whom was Irish) had been court-martialled and sent ashore, and the sergeant of the guard had run from the ship before sailing with several of the crew. The naval agent at Portsmouth had reported to his superiors: ‘The ''Barwell''’s officers consider the guard as worthless, and as little deserving of trust as the convicts!’<ref name="ftn30"> Patton to the Transport Board, 24 October 1797, TNA ADM108/49/395.</ref><br />
<br />
Four and a half months into the voyage, two of the convicts reported that several of the soldiers had approached them about launching a mutiny. The muskets had been loaded, and they would be handed over to the convicts once they had commenced the attack. A search was conducted and a number of convicts were found to be out of irons, and the bulkhead (which functioned as the bars to the prison) had been tampered with.<br />
<br />
Following a consultation among the ship’s officers, somewhere around two dozen of the convicts were flogged, most with two or three dozen lashes, although the ringleaders were given six, eight and ten dozen. By the standards of the day (and in comparison with the punishments handed out to mutinous soldiers or marines), this was not especially severe. Three of the soldiers were flogged – several dozen lashes – and confined among the prisoners. There was also evidence against one of the two Ensigns – the most high-ranking of the soldiers on board – but it was not unequivocal, and he was confined to his quarters for the rest of the voyage.<ref name="ftn31"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37; ''R v George Bond'', Court of Vice Admiralty, Letters of Marque and Related Documents, Registrar of the Court, 1795-1812, 20 August 1798, TNA HCA1/64 & SRNSW, 5/1163, p.91ff.</ref><br />
<br />
== 5.3 Alleged Conspiracies ==<br />
With the eight alleged conspiracies, the ships’ officers were relying entirely on what they had been told by convict informants and what could be extracted from confessions obtained through flogging or the threat of the same. It was these cases that Hunter and Bigge had in mind when they wrote of false alarms and the groundless fear of combinations, although there were fewer of them than there were actual mutinies and proven conspiracies.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for us to know today, if it was then, which of these supposed conspiracies were real and which were not. Most of the actual conspiracies were first revealed to the ships’ officers in exactly the same way as the ones for which we have little or no external evidence.<br />
<br />
In several cases, there is evidence that the informants were expecting favourable treatment as a result, but given that they were placing their lives in jeopardy by informing on their fellow-prisoners, this is perhaps not surprising. And on several occasions, the alleged conspirators claimed that the master had deliberately suborned witnesses, through offers of payment or other favours, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Then as now, it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of these stories.<ref name="ftn32"> Allegations were made of witnesses suborned or threatened in cases involving the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Barwell'' (1797), and the ''Minerva'' (1798).</ref><br />
<br />
What is clear, is that the ships’ officers were terrified of a convict mutiny. In almost all cases, the alleged plot involved the immediate execution of the ship’s officers, and the fate of Captain Willcocks and his chief mate (on the ''Lady Shore'') seems to confirm that their lives were at risk, particularly when (as was almost always the case) they took the lead in resisting an attack.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning of the Australian transportation system, there was good reason to suspect that the convicts would take the ship if they could. Of the last three ships sent to North America (in 1784, in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence), two had been successfully taken by the convicts.<ref name="ftn33"> Regarding the mutiny on the ''Swift'' and the ''Mercury'' (1784), see Emma Christopher, ''A Merciless Place'', Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010, Chapter 12.</ref> And in the spring and summer of 1786, in the months before the First Fleet was commissioned, there had been two serious insurrections on the hulks, resulting in a number of deaths.<ref name="ftn34"> ‘Report of all the Convicts. . . on board the ''Fortunee'' Hulk. . . from the 20<sup>th</sup> February to 26<sup>th</sup> May 1786’, TNA T1/638; ‘Report of Convicts under Sentence of Transportation. . ., on board the ''Censor'' Hulk. . . from the 12<sup>th</sup> April to the 12<sup>th</sup> July 1786’, TNA T1/634.</ref><br />
<br />
These fears were periodically reinforced by reports of conspiracies on the smaller vessels that carried the convicts from the outer regions of Britain and Ireland to their port of embarkation. In 1789, there was a plot to take the ''Peggy'', a small vessel bringing down some prisoners from Scotland, revealed by a convict informant, Thomas Watling, who would go on to become a prominent artist in the colony.<ref name="ftn35"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 11 & 13 June 1789.</ref> The following year, there was an insurrection on a sloop carrying convicts from Lancaster to Portsmouth, which required the intervention of the navy before it was finally put down.<ref name="ftn36"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 1 February 1790, p.2.</ref> There was another conspiracy on one of the convict ships in Ireland in 1796, again revealed by one of the prisoners.<ref name="ftn37"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796</ref><br />
<br />
And of course, the taking of the ''Lady Shore'' and the murder of Captain Willcox received significant attention in the British press in May 1798 when the news of the mutiny first arrived home, and again in late 1799 when one of the mutineers who had been captured was tried and executed.<ref name="ftn38"> ''Mirror of the Times'', 23 November 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25 November 1799; ''General Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Whitehall Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 27 November 1799; ''Times'', 27 November 1799, p.3; ''Observer'', 1 December 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 4 December 1799; ''Times'', 5 December 1799, p.3; ''Morning Herald'', 5 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 20 December 1799; ''Times'', 21 December 1799, p.3; ''Oracle & Daily Advertiser'', 21 December 1799; ''Naval Chronicle'' II, July to Dec 1799, pp.629-630; ''St James’s Chronicle or British Evening Post'', 21-24 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23-25 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'' & ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25-27 December 1799.</ref><br />
<br />
As already noted, these fears were heightened when there were Irish convicts on board, particularly political insurrectionists, many of whom were hardened by civil war and what would now be regarded as terrorist activities. Joseph Holt, an Irish rebel leader who sailed with his family on the ''Minerva'' (1799), and enjoyed the freedom of the deck, told the chief mate that he was a fool to have thought of trusting him with a gun when the ship being chased by a privateer: given half a chance, he said, he would have turned it on the poop deck and freed as many of the convicts as he could.<ref name="ftn39"> T. Crofton Croker (ed.), ''Memoirs of Joseph Holt'', London: Henry Colburn, 1838, Vol. 1, pp.47-52.</ref><br />
<br />
Similar concerns were held whenever there were republicans on board. Rumours of conspiracy followed the so-called Scottish Martyrs – gentlemen exiles rather than convicts – who were sent out to New South Wales on the ''Surprize'' (1794). And while the claims that they were at the heart of conspiracies on board that ship were probably unfounded, there is no doubt that these men had been deliberately provocative in stirring up republican sentiments among the officers and passengers, and in forming improper relationships with some of the prisoners.<br />
<br />
Those ships that sailed in the immediate aftermath of the extensive naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore in 1797, the ''Lady Shore'' among them, had additional reasons to be concerned. The sailors on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) refused to sail unless a prisoner named Thomas McCann was removed from the ship. McCann had been a sailor on the ''Sandwich'' and had originally been sentenced to death for his part in the Nore mutiny. Since coming on board, he had been organising protests among the convicts over the state of their provisions, and the crew were concerned that he would lead a mutiny. Even though he was removed from the ship, his influence persisted, with the convicts continuing to organise protests when they felt that they were not being given their full rations.<ref name="ftn40">= William Noah, Voyage to Sydney in the Ship Hillsborough 1798-1799. . ., Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1978, p.19; G.E. Manwaring and Bonamy Dobree, The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and the Nore in 1797, Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2004, p.277. =<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
So while we cannot be certain which of these alleged conspiracies were real, there were often good reasons for the ships’ officers to be concerned. Hunter’s and Bigge’s criticisms need to be read with some scepticism.<br />
<br />
= Responding to a Convict Mutiny =<br />
== Suppressing the Insurrection ==<br />
The initial response to a convict mutiny was usually led by the ship’s officers and not by the military guard. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was Captain George Bowen who seized a blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders, causing the mutineers to retreat. With the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the search of the convicts’ quarters for weapons was led by the Captain, Michael Hogan, and then an attack on the prison shortly thereafter when the conspirators attempted to break out. In the case of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), it was Captain John Willcocks and his first mate who immediately responded, while (according to one report) the ranking military officer was hiding under his bed.<ref name="ftn41"> On the ''Albemarle'' (1791) – George Bowen, ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292 & HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488; Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a; Account of Robert Cock, TNA CO201/6/294-295 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-9.<br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis ''(1795) – Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.<br />
<br />
On the ''Lady Shore'' (1797) – J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, p.195</ref><br />
<br />
Captain James Stewart of the ''Ann'' (1800) was undertaking his regular inspection of the convicts’ quarters when he was seized by some of the prisoners, as part of a coordinated plan to take the ship. He escaped with the assistance of several other convicts, and while the details are scant, he was part of the group that rescued his mate and the gunner. On the ''Hercules'' (1801), Captain Luckyn Betts was the first man out of the cabin to confront the mutineers who had charged the quarter deck, and had a blunderbuss snapped in his face. (It misfired.)<ref name="ftn42"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
The affray rarely lasted long. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was a matter of seconds; on the ''Hercules'' (1801), it seems to have lasted about 15 minutes. However, there was often a period of some uncertainty before the security of the ship was fully restored. Having quelled the insurrection, the ship’s officers would search the prison, and bring up those who were suspected of being involved. They would also inspect the prisoners’ irons, to ascertain whether they had been cut. Metal implements, particularly knives, were used for sawing through the iron, and the convicts would disguise their efforts by filling the furrows with coloured wax.<br />
<br />
== Investigating Rumours ==<br />
Where the ship’s officers were informed of the conspiracy by one of the convicts, the master would sometimes wait for better evidence. On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), two of the prisoners passed a message to Captain Hogan, who had them brought aft for questioning. They revealed that the sergeant of the guard had offered to provide them with knives in return for payment. Hogan asked the ranking officer, an ensign, to have the troops fall in with their kits, which were searched. Sergeant Ellis was found to have six knives in his bag, and the ensign revealed that several days before, the sergeant had lied to him about having lost four of these knives, and he had given him two more. The touch-holes of six firelocks had also been spiked, and two pistols sent to Ellis for cleaning had been disabled. A search was conducted of the prison, but it appears that nothing of significance was found. Hogan decided to wait for stronger evidence. He cautioned his mates and the petty officers, along with some of the seamen whom he particularly trusted, to watch for any sudden attack, and he later wrote that he was keeping a strict eye on the conduct of the soldiers. It was only when he obtained further evidence from another source that Hogan began a formal interrogation of the suspects.<ref name="ftn43"> TNA CO201/13/146; HRNSW Vol.3, p.110.</ref><br />
<br />
Captain William Hingston, master of the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), reacted in a similar way. He was cautious about the information he had been supplied by a convict informant, and after arming the crew, set a trap designed to encourage the mutineers to show their hand.<ref name="ftn44"> Ebenezer Beriah Kelly, ''Autobiography'', Norwich: John W. Stedman, 1856, pp.17-19.</ref> Much the same appears to have happened on the ''Minerva'' (1799), where a number of stories were passed to the captain before any action was taken. Still uncertain as to the seriousness of the plot, the ship’s officers revolved to lock the supposed ringleaders in a strong room rather than flogging them to extract confessions. More specific stories emerged later in the voyage, when stronger action was taken.<ref name="ftn45"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), pp.83-84, 88-89.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) one of the passengers, a junior official going out to take up a post at New South Wales, reported rumours from among the convicts. Captain William Wilson reacted in a measured way and tightened security.<ref name="ftn46"> For example, Wilson had a barricade constructed across the deck, and allowed the passengers to organise their own watch – Journal of the ''Royal Admiral'', IOR L/MAR/B/338-I and ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 20 & 23 June 1800.</ref> On the ''Hercules'' (1801), where there was later a violent insurrection, the master made no response when the first stories emerged.<ref name="ftn47"> See the evidence of Thomas Trotter, Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court, 6 July 1802, CO201/21/245-246.</ref> The master of the ''Atlas'' (1801), which sailed at the same time as the ''Hercules'', suspected that the convicts had poisoned the guard, a highly improbable scenario. Captain Richard Brooks was jumping at shadows, but he investigated the supposed conspiracy over several weeks, trying to make sense of the limited evidence available to him, all the time allowing the convicts on deck (carefully chained) for daily exercise.<ref name="ftn48"> Journal of the ''Atlas'', IOR L/MAR/B/27E, various entries from 27 February to 11 April 1802.</ref><br />
<br />
It was common for the ships’ officers to flog the convicts in order to extract a confession, and punishment would often cease once a prisoner had admitted his role and implicated others. An officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) explained to this brother that following the revelation of the conspiracy: ‘We got upon deck the ringleaders, to the number of forty, who, after a severe punishment, confessed the whole.’<ref name="ftn49"> Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.</ref> Captain Hogan wrote: ‘When each man received punishment, he gave information against others, evading as much as possible the part he had in it himself. . .’<ref name="ftn50"> TNA CO201/13/150a; HRNSW Vol.3, p.109.</ref><br />
<br />
A British official at Madeira wrote about the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) when the ship called there briefly to offload the two sailors suspected of being involved. He reported that when the first of the ringleaders was brought on deck, he was threatened with immediate hanging: ‘he, from terror, declared that if they would pardon him he would discover the whole plot, which he accordingly did’. He named another two men as the ringleaders, one of whom had been wounded in the affray.<ref name="ftn51"> Robert Cock to the Duke of Leeds, 13 May 1791, TNA CO201/6/294-295; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-449.</ref><br />
<br />
The probative value of evidence extracted through flogging or the threat of hanging, is of course highly questionable, and such practices had ceased to be employed in the British criminal justice system. The author has been unable to find any precedents for this extraordinary practice on board these merchant ships, which was not challenged by any of the authorities at the time.<br />
<br />
== The Ship’s Council ==<br />
There appears to have been a convention that masters would convene a conference of the ship’s officers, and ideally, the passengers and crew members as well, before making any firm decisions about the response to a mutiny, particularly when a decision involved the execution of one of the mutineers. There also seems to have been a practice of including a relatively senior officer from another ship, if one was in company, or that individuals independent of the ship’s officers would be involved.<br />
<br />
There was no legal obligation in English maritime law to consult with the ship’s officers before disciplining the crew, but according to Abbott (1802):<br />
<br />
. . . the master should, except in cases requiring his immediate interposition, take the advice of the persons next below him in authority, as well as to prevent the operation of passion in his own breast, as to secure witnesses to the propriety of his conduct. For the master on his return to this country may be called upon by action at law, to answer to a mariner, who has been beaten or imprisoned by him, or by his order, in the course of a voyage; and for the justification of his conduct, he should be able to shew not only that there was a sufficient cause for chastisement, but also that the chastisement itself was reasonable and moderate, otherwise the mariner may recover damages proportionate to the injury received.<ref name="ftn52"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.126-127.</ref><br />
<br />
The masters of East Indiamen were expected to bring an offender before a ‘consultation’ of officers prior to issuing any punishments, and there appears to have been a widespread convention that British seafarers would not be discharged in foreign ports without formal consultation.<ref name="ftn53"> On the former, see Peter Earle, ''Sailors: English Merchant Seamen, 1650-1775'', London: Methuen, 2007, p.154.</ref> The first known example of this is the Strange fur-trading expedition to the north-west coast of America in 1785-86 (in the ''Captain Cook'' and the ''Experiment'') where the owners, David Scott & Co of Bombay, wanted a council of the officers to be held if unruly men were to be put ashore at a foreign port:<br />
<br />
. . . & as You have not the aid of martial Law, we have to desire Your discharging every officer and man that may show the least tendency to subvert discipline, at the first English Port or at China. In such case we would advise Your holding a Council of the Officers, & entering their report on the Log Book; as we feel an interest in every man who embarks on the expedition, it would be pleasing to see that no person was discharged but in consequence of the voices of the Officers.<ref name="ftn54"> David Scott & Co, ‘Sailing Directions to James Strange Esq., Director of the Exploring Expedition to the No. West Coast of America and towards the North Pole’, 7 December 1785, in ''Records of Fort St. George: James Strange’s Journal and Narrative of the Commercial Expedition from Bombay to the Northwest Coast of America'', Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1982, p.35. </ref><br />
<br />
And legislation passed in 1799 for the further regulation of the slave trade, prescribed that the masters of ships engaged in that trade were not to discharge unruly mariners without first consulting with one of His Majesty’s ships of war.<ref name="ftn55"> Abbott, pp.128-129.</ref><br />
<br />
While there was no comparable body of law or practice relating to the transportation of convicts, it is clear that most of the masters acknowledged the convention that they should consult with their officers, at least when exemplary punishments were required following a mutiny. What is perhaps of greater interest, is that over time, this formalised into a legal obligation.<br />
<br />
As previously noted, there was no legal authority to try and punish mutineers, be they crew members, passengers, soldiers or convicts; any execution, flogging or confinement had to be undertaken as an act of self-defence. It is for this reason that most accounts of these ships’ conferences explicitly state that they executed the prisoner for the preservation of the ship and her crew. It was also conventional to report that such decisions were unanimous.<ref name="ftn56"> Examples include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Minerva'' (1798), and the ''Ann'' (1800).</ref><br />
<br />
Thus, on the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the master convened a conference that included the naval agent (a naval lieutenant assigned to the convoy for monitoring the navigation), the ship’s officers and crew, and the soldiers. The naval agent specifically noted in his account that there were no other ships in company to hold a formal trial. According to the captain:<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm. . .<ref name="ftn57"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the First Mate wrote:<br />
<br />
It was therefore agreed unanimously, by all the free persons on board, that the ringleaders should be punished with severity, which was put into execution. . . Had these steps not been taken the ship could never have been secure, as it evidently appeared the convicts, headed by the serjeant, had bound themselves by oath to murder the captain and the principal officers.<ref name="ftn58"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.107-108.</ref><br />
<br />
While we lack a detailed account of several ships, there appear to have been ship’s conferences on all of the vessels where mutinies or conspiracies occurred, except three. One of these was the ''Lady Shore'', where the mutiny was successful, but in the other two cases – the ''Britannia'' (1796), the master was strongly censured and on the ''Hercules'' (1801), found guilty of manslaughter for the failure to consult. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the alleged conspiracies, since in some cases, the reaction was mild, but we know of ship’s councils in two of the eight cases.<br />
<br />
It was usual for there to be a judicial inquiry when these ships arrived in Sydney, particularly where men had died, where there had been a significant amount of flogging, and/or where there was a formal protest by one of the convicts or military officers. As long as there had been a conference and unanimity, it was rare to second-guess the decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of the mutiny or conspiracy. However, it was also rare for the authorities in Sydney to impose further punishment on the conspirators, even where the ship’s officers had deferred making a decision until their arrival.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Britannia'' (1796), there had been extensive flogging and some of those punished had subsequently died. A judicial inquiry was held and, as the Judge Advocate reported in his journal: <br />
<br />
As these punishments had been inflicted by the direction of the master, without consulting any of the officers on board as to the measure of them he was highly censured. . .<ref name="ftn59"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates. . . Charges Imputed to Captain Dennett’, 13 June 1797, TNA CO201/14/31ff; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board the ''Britannia'', 5/1156, No.13, Reel 1929 or COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
The second case was that of the ''Hercules'' (1801), where Captain Betts was prosecuted in the Court of Vice Admiralty, for the deaths of 12 or 13 convicts in the course of the insurrection, and for executing one of the ringleaders in the immediate aftermath. He was cleared of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of the mutiny – indeed, very little evidence was taken in relation to this charge, so it appears that the court did not regard it as a matter requiring serious attention.<br />
<br />
However, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter on the second charge and fined £500, a substantial sum of money. Based on the evidence at the trial, it seems likely that all of the officers agreed with his course of action, but he had failed to conduct a formal consultation; and the execution had possibly occurred an hour after the mutiny was over (although there was conflicting evidence on this point). The sentence was suspended for confirmation by the Home Secretary, and the ultimate outcome is unknown.<ref name="ftn60"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254.</ref><br />
<br />
== Punishment ==<br />
While the execution, flogging and/or confinement of mutineers were strictly-speaking not punishments, but rather acts of self-defence necessary to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew, contemporaries were not always careful in making this distinction.<br />
<br />
=== Executions ===<br />
<br />
There were executions on four of the 11 ships where an actual mutiny or conspiracy was involved. Two of the ringleaders of the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) were hung at the fore-yard arm following a ship’s council. Lieutenant Robert Parry Young, the naval agent, was clearly uncomfortable with the decision, writing to the Admiralty that it was for the general good and the safety of the ship: ‘I had no authority for so doing but the moment required a severe example’ and he hoped their Lordships would support him if there were any bad consequences. ‘It was with difficulty I could prevent the ship’s company from executing more of them from revenge, for had the convicts not been repulsed, the massacre would have been considerable on our part.’<ref name="ftn61"> Young to Stephens, 24 April 1791, TNA HO28/8/99-100a; TNA T1/694; TNA ADM106/2638, 7 July 1791; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-8.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the principals was shot in the presence of all the convicts, who had been assembled on deck for the purpose. Captain Betts shot one of the ringleaders on the ''Hercules'' (1801), not so much as a considered act designed to suppress any further intentions of mutiny, but on an adrenalin high, egged on by the other officers on the quarter deck.<ref name="ftn62"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
We have few details of what transpired on the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), but the decision was taken by the naval agent, following what was described as ‘the necessary inquiry’. The one brief account we have of the episode says that many of the convicts were out of irons, but there is no mention of an actual uprising. There appears to have been some kind of judicial inquiry upon arrival in New South Wales, since the Judge Advocate wrote that the Agent:<br />
<br />
. . . thought it indispensable to the safety of the ship to cause an instant example to be made, and ordered one of the convicts who was found out of irons to be executed that night. Others he punished the next morning; and by these measures, as might well be expected, threw such a damp on the spirits of the rest, that he heard no more during the voyage of attempts or intentions to take the ship.<ref name="ftn63"> David Collins, ''An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales''<nowiki> [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975 (hereafter Collins), Vol.1, p.261.</nowiki></ref><br />
<br />
It is difficult for us to imagine why such an extreme response was considered necessary, but it needs to be placed in context. These men were bound together in a small society, surrounded by water, thousands of miles from the nearest British authorities. The punishment for ‘piracy’, the legal term for a mutiny at sea, was hanging on the shoreline at Execution Dock. The British Navy would go to great lengths to track down mutineers who successfully took one of their ships, sending the ''Pandora'' all the way out to Tahiti, in an attempt to capture the men who had taken the ''Bounty''.<ref name="ftn64"> Geoffrey Rawson, ''Pandora’s Last Voyage'', London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd,'' ''1963.</ref><br />
<br />
In some ways, the early Australian convict transports were in a similar position to the wagon trains that crossed the American prairies in the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where the emigrants were obliged to make and enforce their own system of justice once they had moved beyond the boundaries of the state. When confronted with a killing by one of their number, the emigrants were obliged to organise a search party, constitute a court, make a decision on guilt or innocence, agree on a form of punishment and carry out the same.<br />
<br />
As with merchant ships, they relied on a form of popular justice, meeting as a body politic to make decisions rather than deferring to the notional leader of the company. And, as with the merchant ships, it was not unusual for them to appoint strangers – individuals from other companies, or people they had met along the trail – to perform the functions of judge and jury.<ref name="ftn65"> John Phillip Reid, ''Policing the Elephant: Crime, Punishment, and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail'', San Marino, California: Huntingdon Library, 1997, pp.110, 117-132.</ref><br />
<br />
Expulsion was an option, but whether from a sense of justice or a concern for their fellow emigrants, there were numerous occasions on which they resigned themselves to the necessity of taking the offender’s life. As a journal-keeper on one of these wagon trains wrote:<br />
<br />
It was justice conscientiously administered, without law – an action necessary under the circumstances. . . It was a matter the necessity of which was deplorable, but the execution of which was imposed upon those who were on the spot and uncovered the convincing facts.<ref name="ftn66"> Ibid p.196.</ref><br />
<br />
There were, however, a number of significant differences between American wagon trains and British merchant ships. The ships’ masters were expected, as a matter of convention and ultimately of law, to organise a conference of all the officers before making life and death decisions. In taking a life, they were expected to have acted in the immediate aftermath of a violent uprising, and for the safety of the ship; unlike the emigrants on the Overland Trail, they were not permitted to organise a criminal trial and execute justice in their own right. Unlike the wagon trains, merchant ships engaged in the convict trade were bound by a formal system of justice, and they were subject to the criminal law once they arrived at their destination.<br />
<br />
=== Flogging ===<br />
<br />
Flogging was relatively common on merchant and naval ships, for the maintenance of order, and it was generally necessary on ships carrying convicted criminals to the Antipodes. It was a disciplinary measure, similar to the corporal punishment imposed (at the time) by a parent on a child, a teacher on a student or a master on a servant. In the case of insurrections, it was also justified as a means of self-defence to restore the safety of the ship.<br />
<br />
In most cases, floggings were confined to the ringleaders, or to convicts who had been caught out of irons, and the number of lashes was relatively few. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), for example, once two of the ringleaders had been hung, punishments were administered to a handful of others – three dozen to one and two dozen to another two. This was an extraordinarily mild response, given the seriousness of the threat to the ship.<ref name="ftn67"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the ringleaders was shot and another was given 250 lashes. That was a serious punishment, but properly administered it should not have threatened the man’s life. Floggings of this kind were frequently handed out to soldiers and marines for offences that were much less serious.<ref name="ftn68"> Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Barwell'' (1797), the risk of a mutiny was very real, with a significant number of the convicts out of irons. The ship’s journal is difficult to read, but it appears that several dozen men were given two or three dozen lashes, a mild punishment, however one of the ringleaders was given ten dozen, another eight and several six. This was a measured response and it would not have been considered inappropriate by the authorities in Sydney or at home.<ref name="ftn69"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37.</ref><br />
<br />
The punishment on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) was more extensive. As noted above, there was clear evidence in this case that the sergeant of the guard had been collecting knives so the convicts could cut their irons, and he had disabled many of the sentries’ weapons. A significant number of convicts had freed themselves from their shackles. It will be recalled that Captain Hogan was slow in responding, waiting until he had clear evidence that the conspiracy was real, and he interrogated the suspected mutineers over several days, collecting detailed statements. Forty-two men and eight women were punished, in varying degrees. There was a second conspiracy around four weeks later, and on this occasion, around forty of the leaders were ‘severely punished’.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not explain how many lashes they were given. The only occasion where a number is mentioned is two dozen lashes given to one of the soldiers, a mild punishment. The subsequent inquiry by the Judge Advocate concluded:<br />
<br />
. . . we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn70"> ‘Inquiry re Conspiracy. . . ‘, SRNSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17, p.387; TNA CO201/13/160a.</ref><br />
<br />
=== Confinement and Removal from the Ship ===<br />
<br />
Where military officers, gentlemen convicts or crew members were involved, and/or where the evidence was unclear, ships’ captains were much less willing to resort to violent punishment and suspected conspirators were confined in some way. <br />
<br />
''The ship’s company:'' The crew members on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) who were thought to have assisted with the mutiny were confined and offloaded at Madeira: there is no evidence that they were flogged, and it is unlikely that they were later punished in any other way. This was not unusual: when sailing in company, it was common for unruly crew members to be removed from the ship and placed on board the commodore, or one of the other vessels in the convoy.<ref name="ftn71"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport’, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Surprize'' (1794), Captain Campbell had become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of his Chief Mate, a Mr Macpherson. At a time when there were already allegations of a conspiracy among the convicts, some of the crew claimed that Macpherson had deliberately set the sails so as to cause her to drop back in the fleet. Campbell spoke to the commodore (''HMS Suffolk'') and had him removed from the ship. While the Scottish Martyrs sought to make a great deal of this, it is clear that Macpherson was openly associating with the republican exiles, and had suffered some kind of breakdown; he had lost the confidence of his captain. There was nothing untoward about Campbell’s response: two weeks later, the master of the ''Ponsborne'', an East Indiaman sailing in company with the ''Surprize'', sent three men, including the boatswain’s mate, on board the ''Suffolk'' for disorderly behaviour, receiving three others in their place.<ref name="ftn72"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SRNSW 5/1156, pp.2, 4 & 12<nowiki>; </nowiki>Patrick Campbell at TNA CO201/12/188-189 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.860-1; Journal of the ''Ponsborne'', IOR L/MAR/B/462J, 15 May 1794.</ref><br />
<br />
''The military guard:'' One of the soldiers on the ''Boddington'' (1793) was placed in irons for the duration of the voyage, with the expectation that he would be punished in the colony. There is no evidence that he was.<ref name="ftn73"> Kent to Nepean, 18 March 1793, TNA HO42/25/160-161a.</ref> On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), Sergeant Ellis – against whom there was clear evidence of his complicity in the plot – was confined on the poop deck and then flogged to extract a confession, although the number of lashes is unknown. One of the privates was also flogged, twice, receiving two dozen the second time, but another two were merely confined and one of these had his head shaved.<ref name="ftn74"> TNA CO201/13/150a, 156, 158a; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.103-109.</ref><br />
<br />
''Convicts:'' While Captain Campbell believed that two of the Scottish Martyrs were at the bottom of the conspiracy on board the ''Surprize'' (1794), he was conscious that their treatment was being closely followed in the British press, and they were simply confined. Campbell wrote to the ship‘s owners:<br />
<br />
I have taken every means in my power to be cautious in the treatment of so many descriptions of people, and it is reasonable to suppose from the connections of Palmer and Skirving, the two apparent ringleaders of this Plot, that every exertion will be used in their favour, and to slander those whose lives they meant to take but whatever you may hear you may rest perfectly satisfied that I have taken such cautious Steps as to put it out of the power of the most malicious to injure me or any of the Civil Officers appointed by Government. . .<ref name="ftn75"> Copy of Capt. Campbell’s letter from Rio Janeiro to Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, n.d., TNA CO201/12/186.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Minerva'' (1799), Captain Salkeld responded to the initial rumours of a conspiracy by locking 14 of the supposed mutineers in a strong room. The stories persisted, but Salkeld was unable to find hard evidence of a conspiracy. The surgeon, John Washington Price, described their dilemma:<br />
<br />
Though we are sensible of his guilt, yet we could not procure sufficient evidence against him (those who could give it being afraid to come forward), we permit him to remain unpunished, but two of his confederates who have been in the habit of both receiving and forwarding messages from and to him have been put in double irons with a chain passing from each through the bars that are a midship in the prison. And there we leave them to commune together and to deliberate on the best method to effect their liberation.<ref name="ftn76"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, pp.120-121.</ref><br />
<br />
= Accountable in Law =<br />
As previously observed, the masters of convict transports were legally accountable for the manner in which they responded to a mutiny or a conspiracy on board their ships. Prior to the formal establishment of a Court of Vice Admiralty in 1798, the Governors relied on the Judge Advocate and a bench of magistrates to conduct administrative inquiries into mutinies, conspiracies and allegations of maltreatment on board the convict transports.<br />
<br />
''Unreported Inquiries:'' There is no formal record of such an inquiry for the ''Albemarle'' (1791), where two of the mutineers had been executed, but the Judge Advocate wrote a detailed account of the mutiny in his journal, which almost certainly means that he conducted some kind of investigation.<ref name="ftn77"> Collins, Vol.1, p.151.</ref> The same applies to the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), where one of the many convicts out of irons had been executed.<ref name="ftn78"> Collins, Vol.1, p.261.</ref><br />
<br />
A number of papers have survived relating to events on the ''Surprize'' (1794). Shortly after their arrival in Sydney Cove, two of the Scottish Martyrs submitted a petition to the Governor, insisting that Captain Campbell had obtained confessions and testimonies through promises, bribes, threats and torture, and proposing that criminal charges be instituted against him. Campbell provided the Governor with a contemporaneous account of the events on board the ship, and the evidence that had been collected throughout the course of his inquiries, seeking the prosecution and punishment of two of the Martyrs and their followers.<br />
<br />
There is no record of these matters in the journal of the Judge Advocate, and the Acting Governor, Francis Grose, and Governor Hunter (when he arrived) seem to have dealt with the matter themselves, refusing to take any action against either side.<ref name="ftn79"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SANSW 5/1156; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.862-873, 879-882.</ref> One of the Martyrs later published a self-serving account, and historians have been inclined to accept their version of events, but we are no better equipped to ascertain the truth today than Governor Hunter was in 1794.<ref name="ftn80"> Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
''Formal Judicial Inquiries:'' The first detailed transcript of a judicial inquiry relates to the flogging of convicts on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795). Captain Hogan lodged a formal ‘protest’ concerning the mutiny shortly after arrival, but the formal investigation was initiated as the result of a written complaint by the corporal of the guard who had been confined for his supposed part in the conspiracy. He accused Hogan of ‘inhumane treatment’ and false imprisonment. The inquiry was chaired by the Judge Advocate, David Collins, assisted by the Acting Colonial Surgeon, William Balmain, in their capacity as Justices of the Peace.<br />
<br />
Balmain conducted some kind of preliminary investigation, collecting statements in the form of affidavits, and the hearing itself seems to have lasted for a single day. Collins and Balmain reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
We beg leave to lay before you the accompanying depositions and papers, from a careful examination of which we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn81"> ‘Proceedings on Board the Ship ''Marquis Cornwallis'': In the Matter of Capt. Hogan’s Treatment of the Convicts’, SANSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17 pp.387-398; TNA CO201/13/154-160a; ‘Conspiracy to Seize the ''Marquis Cornwallis''’, HRNSW Vol.3, pp.102-111.</ref><br />
<br />
Another inquiry was conducted the following year by three justices of the peace into the floggings on the ''Britannia'' (1796). Once again, there was some form of preliminary investigation to marshal the evidence, and testimony was heard over five days. The magistrates reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
After maturely considering the Evidence on both sides that has been brought before us on this Occasion, We are unanimously of Opinion that Captain Dennett’s Conduct in punishing the convicts in the manner he did for conspiring to take the Ship was imprudent and ill-judged, in as much as he did not take the sense of the Officers and Ship’s Company, individually, as to the steps necessary to be adopted for the preservation of the Ship and the lives of the People therein, for altho’ they might have been all present, and many of them assisting on that occasion, yet their not having been formally consulted renders it questionable whether the Captain’s proceedings would have met their unanimous approbation, and so far his Conduct in this instance may be regarded as bordering on too great a degree of severity. But we also clearly concur of Opinion that the Surgeon (Mr Byers) was beyond all the other Bystanders particularly culpable in not stedfastly protesting against the Cruelties which he charges Captain Dennett with and was therefore inexcusably negligent and indifferent in the performance of his duty, and consequently in an eminent degree, accessory to the inhumanities he complains of, such is our Opinion of the first charge. . .<br />
<br />
Since this was an administrative process, they also recommended reform of the transportation system:<br />
<br />
Before we conclude, we here beg leave to offer to his Excellency our Opinion that all Ships coming to this port with Transports should have on board an Officer of the Crown, who should be invested with proper power and authority, as well for the conducting of the Ship as the particular inspection and direction of the management of the Convicts on Board.<ref name="ftn82"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/52; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277.</ref><br />
<br />
''Court of Vice Admiralty:'' The only trial in the Court of Vice Admiralty in this period involved the prosecution of Captain Luckyn Betts of the ''Hercules'' (1801) for the unlawful deaths of 13 convicts in the court of the mutiny, and the deliberate execution of Jeremiah Prendergass, one of the ringleaders, shortly after the insurrection had been suppressed. Evidence was heard over two days, and as previously noted, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter:<br />
<br />
The Court after mature deliberation are satisfied that a mutiny actually existed on board the ship Hercules of which the prisoner Luckyn Betts was Master, do therefore acquit him of the first Count in the Indictment but find him guilty of Manslaughter on the Second And do Sentence him to pay a Fine of £500 to be appropriated to the Orphan Fund of this Colony, and that the said Luckyn Betts be imprisoned until the said Fine of £500 be paid.<ref name="ftn83"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254 at p.254; ‘The Trial of Captain Betts’, HRNSW Vol.4, pp.810-818 at p.818. </ref><br />
<br />
The prosecution was based on the evidence of the senior military officer on board, supported by his subordinates, and Betts’ account was corroborated by the ship’s officers. There seems little doubt that at the time, the military officers had supported Prendergass’s execution, which may account for the finding of manslaughter rather than murder.<br />
<br />
This was probably the most serious convict mutiny in the history of the Australian transportation system, and the court showed little interest in the deaths which occurred in the process of suppressing it, in spite of evidence indicating that some of these occurred in remote corners of the ship in the final stages of the insurrection.<br />
<br />
The court was most concerned to establish the circumstances surrounding Prenderass’ death, and focused on the time which had elapsed since the retaking of the quarterdeck and the failure of Betts to hold a ship’s council. The defence witnesses insisted that the safety of the ship had not yet been secured, and Betts sought to defend his actions by describing his emotional state at the time:<br />
<br />
A Blunderbuss had been Snapt at my Head the Consequence of which the Head of Providence had averted. I had just heard the solemn declaration of a dying man, who was reproaching Prendergass for being the Sole Author of the Mutiny. Prendergass had but a little time before been detected with an Adze in his Hand Attempting the Life of one of the Seamen. . . the deck was Strewed with dead Bodies, the Confusion was great, the Agitation of my Mind was more than Language can describe, and perhaps, unless You, Gentlemen, can for a Moment conceive Yourselves in my Situation, it will be impossible for you to have any thing like and adequate Idea of it.<ref name="ftn84"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
Again, this may help to explain why the finding was not murder. Governor King suspended the sentence, and deferred to the authority of the Home Secretary, however the ultimate outcome of the matter is not clear. The Transport Board did not consider that he had breached his contractual obligations.<ref name="ftn85"> Transport Board to King, 14 November 1803, ''Historical Records of Australia'', Series 1, Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1914 (hereafter HRA) Series 1, Vol.4, p.425.</ref> <br />
<br />
''Prosecution of Mutineers:'' There was little interest in pursuing the mutineers once they had arrived in New South Wales. Given the violence of some of the insurrections, and the seriousness with which mutiny was regarded in British courts, this comes as a surprise. None of the convicts who were involved in the mutinies on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) and the ''Hercules'' (1801), the most violent of the uprisings, were tried upon their arrival in New South Wales. Some of the supposed conspirators on the ''Barwell'' (1797) were tried and acquitted.<ref name="ftn86"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.467; TNA HCA1/64.</ref> Five of the seamen on the ''Hercules'' (1801) were charged ‘with force and arms upon the High Seas of piratically feloniously and wickedly combining to stir up bring about and make revolt and mutiny and did contribute to seize the ship and murder the officers and passengers’, but the evidence was not strong and the prosecutions were abandoned after the first of the men were acquitted.<ref name="ftn87"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court. . .’, 14 July 1802, TNA CO201/21/255-257.</ref><br />
<br />
British courts were reluctant to revisit the decisions made by ships’ captains a thousand miles away, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. They were often faced with widely differing accounts of what happened by parties who had developed deep suspicion, and in some cases, loathing, for one another in the course of the voyage. Criticism tended to focus on procedural matters – the time elapsed since the security of the ship was restored, and whether the captain had consulted with his officers.<br />
<br />
But unlike wagons trains on the Overland Trail, convict transports were governed by law, and it is clear that ships’ captains moderated their behaviour out of a concern at possible criminal prosecution and, in the case of well-connected gentlemen convicts, potential scrutiny by the press.<br />
<br />
= Too Great a Degree of Severity? =<br />
== Kindness and Humanity ==<br />
In some cases, however, we encounter captains who sailed from England with the expressed hope of not needing to punish any of the convicts in the course of the voyage. This seems to have been the case on the'' Minerva (1799) ''where, after they had received allegations of yet another conspiracy, Surgeon Price wrote:<br />
<br />
We have had very great hopes, and indeed wished very much, that in no instance during the voyage. . . we should have occasion to punish any of these too unfortunate men, but their hopes were frustrated, and our wishes proved abortive.<ref name="ftn88"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, p.88.</ref><br />
<br />
The master of the'' Friendship (1799)'', Hugh Reid, took his wife with him on the voyage, and prior to sailing from Ireland, she noted in her journal that:<br />
<br />
Captain Reid thought that it would be possible to take the prisoners to the place of their destination without having an occasion intervene for inflicting on them punishment; or any severity beyond that of attending to their safe custody. . .<ref name="ftn89"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', September 1819, pp.238-239.</ref><br />
<br />
Reid had been Chief Mate on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', and when he and his wife dined with his former master, Michael Hogan, at the Cape, he reported that the prisoners had behaved very well, and that ‘they had put it out of his power or that of his officers to lay a finger on them: and that he was in hopes of landing them at the place of their destination without introducing the machinery of punishment’. Hogan – who was clearly more comfortable with using the lash if it was required – was surprised.<ref name="ftn90"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', November 1819, p.455.</ref><br />
<br />
On their return to England, Mrs Reid wrote that her husband received letters from relatives of the convicts they had carried out:<br />
<br />
It was particularly gratifying to my husband to receive letters from the friends of those poor men whom embarked from Ireland, expressive of their sincere thanks for the great kindness and humanity shewn to them on the passage, and observing that they had mentioned that the only hardship they experienced was the necessary confinement, which the laws of their country and the safety of the ship required.<ref name="ftn91"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal, ''December 1820, p.577.</ref><br />
<br />
What is significant is not so much that the convicts’ relatives sent these letters, but that Hugh and Mary Ann Reid were grateful to have received them. This was how Captain Reid wanted to be known.<br />
<br />
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the transportation system, but in general, convicts on a voyage to the Antipodes were treated well. When the women of the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) asked the ship’s surgeon if they could substitute tea and sugar for some of their daily serving of salted meat, he made a recommendation to the contractor, who passed it on to the Navy Board with his warm support. From that time forward, all female convicts on Botany Bay ships were issued with a ration of tea and sugar throughout the voyage. And when it was realised that a number of the women were pregnant, the government organised a supply of linen, which Richards arranged to have made up. On their lying-in, convict women were supplied not only with clouts and pilchers for their newborn children, but bedgowns and nightcaps for themselves. This is a very different account of the transportation system than the lurid tales that amateur and family historians like to tell.<br />
<br />
Of course, the living conditions in a convict prison could be deeply unpleasant, particularly when prisoners were sent on board with typhus and/or the ship encountered high seas and stormy weather, but those were circumstances beyond the control of the ships’ officers.<br />
<br />
== An Intrinsically Pathological Situation ==<br />
There is one ship, however, where the level of violence used in response to the conspiracy indicates that a deeply pathological situation had developed. The atmosphere on board the ''Britannia'' (1796) was tense from the outset – shortly before she sailed from Cork, there had been an attempted mutiny on one of the convict ships, although the details are few, and it is unclear which vessel was involved.<ref name="ftn92"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796; ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 16 September 1796, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
A significant number of the men had been associated with a revolutionary movement known as the Defenders, which relied on the administration of oaths to maintain secrecy. Some of these men had participated in a violent battle with the Irish Militia in May of the previous year, and thus were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence. Others had been involved in lynch mobs and conspired to assassinate public officials.<ref name="ftn93"> Barbara Hall, ''Death or Liberty: The Convicts of the Britannia, Ireland to Botany Bay, 1797'' (hereafter Hall), Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Nor were the ship’s officers reassured by the soldiers who had been sent on board. Several of them had come directly from the Savoy prison, four had run from the ship at Cork, they were insolent and one had threatened the cook with a knife. They had proved unreliable as sentries, one falling asleep on watch, and another getting drunk with the seamen.<ref name="ftn94"> Hall, pp.237, 239; Journal of the ''Britannia'', IOR L/MAR/B/285XX, 8 & 14 November, 23 December 1796, 2 January 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
When Captain Dennett inquired of the resident agent at Cork whether the government had any instructions as to how to deal with such an unruly shipload of prisoners, he was told that there were none. He was to act as circumstances might require. Dennett later explained:<br />
<br />
Left then alone in a situation entirely new, I was determined if the conduct of those committed to my charge would but permit to make them as comfortable as it was possible, but at the same time if they behaved ill to have them punished in such a manner as to deter others from being guilty of similar offences. I have always been of opinion that severity in some instances is lenity in general.<ref name="ftn95"> ‘Captain Dennott’s Address to the Court’, 21 June 1797, HRNSW Vol.3, p.275</ref><br />
<br />
Upon their arrival at Rio de Janeiro, the convicts were transferred to an island in the harbour for the sake of their health. While the details are scant, it is evident that several of the convicts attempted an escape, attacking the guard and trying to steal their muskets.<ref name="ftn96"> TNA CO201/14/42a, 43, 47a & HRNSW Vol.3, p.257, 258, 266; Journal of the ''Britannia'', 17, 21 & 22 February 1797, and evidence attributed to Kit Hughes on 25 March 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
Several days after sailing from port, one of the men who had been liberated because of good behaviour, came aft and advised the captain that the convicts in the fore prison had been administering oaths and were plotting to take the ship. Having had the story confirmed by a second prisoner, Dennett set about flogging the conspirators to make them confess – six men were given 300 lashes each in the course of the afternoon, and after some resistance, they implicated others. At the end of the day, the fore prison was thoroughly searched and a large number of cutting implements were uncovered – knives, saws, scissors, spike nails, staples and iron hoops. There was no question that an attack was being planned.<br />
<br />
Dennett now set about punishing men for their involvement in this conspiracy and in the attempted escapes at Rio de Janeiro. The second day began with the flogging of two men who had been given 300 lashes the day before. They were given another 500 each. When the cat ceased to open their skin, Dennett had the boatswain make up another. By the time that day was over, another 5,700 lashes had been administered to 20 men, and another 1,575 were given the following day. In all, more than 8,000 lashes administered to 31 men over the course of two and a half days.<br />
<br />
One can imagine what it must have been like in the prison of the ''Britannia'', listening to the sounds emanating from the deck above. On the third day of flogging, one of the convict women threw herself overboard. She was already suffering from mental illness, but her suicide was a reaction to the events of the previous days. One of the soldiers followed her the next day, ‘out of a fit of insanity’. Both of the men who had been given 800 lashes died in the weeks that followed, and three more besides. When the ''Britannia'' arrived in Sydney Cove two months later, several of the prisoners had to be sent to hospital, including one man who had been given 700 lashes.<ref name="ftn97"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/31ff; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board, SANSW 5/1156, or Copy at COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
As previously noted, a judicial inquiry was established into the events on board the ''Britannia'', which concluded that the captain’s behaviour was ‘bordering on too great a degree of severity’. It also found that the surgeon superintendent, the government’s agent on board the ship, was ‘particularly culpable in not steadfastly protesting against the Cruelties’ practised by Captain Dennett.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Stanford Experiment (1973), we understand much better what happened on the ''Britannia''. In reflecting on their experiment at the time, Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney wrote that the anti-social behaviour of the students who had acted as guards ‘were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals’.<ref name="ftn98"> C. Haney, W. Banks and P. Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'', (1973) 1, pp.69-97, at p.90.</ref> The sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib in 2003 reminds that these lessons have still not been learned.<br />
<br />
Zimbardo and Haney have argued that to a significant extent, this behaviour is situational: ‘the ‘psychologic’ of the environment was more powerful than the benign intentions or predispositions of the participants.’ No doubt this explains some of what happened on the ''Britannia'' in 1797.<br />
<br />
But others have pointed to role that dehumanisation plays in the abuse prisoners and prisoners of war, the systematic devaluation of human attributes in outgroups.<ref name="ftn99"> See, for example, G. Tendayi Viki, Daniel Osgood and Sabine Phillips, ‘Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war’, ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', (2013) 49, pp.325-328.</ref> There may also have been some of this in the reaction to the conspiracy on the ''Britannia'' in the middle of the South Atlantic on the 23<sup>rd</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> and 25<sup>th</sup> of March 1797. Among the ships’ officers and the public authorities in New South Wales, there was not a great deal of respect for the Irish and there was significant fear of political rebels such as the Defenders. In writing of the conspiracy on the ''Boddington'' (1793), the Judge Advocate, David Collins referred to ‘the wild lawless Irish’, and in reflecting on the events on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), he wrote:<br />
<br />
It appeared that the men were for the most part of the description of people termed Defenders, desperate, and ripe for any scheme from which danger and destruction were likely to ensue. The women were of the same complexion; and their ingenuity and cruelty were displayed in the part they were to take in the purposed insurrection, which was the preparing of pulverised glass to mix with the flour of which the seamen were to make their puddings. What an importation!<ref name="ftn100"> Collins, Vol.1, pp.262, 380-381.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor Hunter wrote to the Home Secretary of ‘such horrid characters as the people called Irish Defenders, who. . . I wish had been either sent to the coast of Africa or some place as fit for them’.<ref name="ftn101"> Hunter to Portland, 12 November 1796, TNA CO201/13//218a.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor King referred to the ‘mutinous Irish’ on the ''Hercules''.<ref name="ftn102"> King to Hobart, 9 May 1803, HRA Series 1, Vol.4, p.85.</ref> And a newspaper report in Sydney concerning one of the men who arrived on that ship claimed that ‘he was well known in Ireland during the rebellion for his abominable depravities. . .’<ref name="ftn103"> ''Sydney Gazette'', 19 January 1806, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
What is striking, however, about the responses to the mutinies and conspiracies on board convict ships in the early years of the transportation system, is how rare such an abusive response was.<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
No doubt there were false alarms, but one in four convict transports carrying men in the period 1787 to 1801 experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, and if we include the mutinies on the hulks and the smaller vessels which carried convicts to the port of embarkation, then the ships’ officers did need to exercise great care in the management of the male convicts, particularly where Irish political prisoners were concerned. As the tragic fate of the captain and the chief mate on the ''Lady Shore'' demonstrated, there was a high cost to pay when the authorities under-estimated the prospects of an uprising.<br />
<br />
Hunter was right to say that fears of insurrection sometimes excused ‘the enforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline’, but these occasions were rare. In general, the punishment of convicts in the passage to New South Wales was moderate, even when violent mutinies were concerned, and in several cases, we encounter masters who dreamed of carrying the prisoners to their destination without the need to punish a single one.<br />
<br />
While the courts were reluctant to second-guess events which took place some thousands of miles away at sea, there is evidence that the prospect of subsequent scrutiny served to moderate the response to an insurrection. The situation of a convict on board a transport bound for the Antipodes was very different from that of a slave bound for the Americas, or an emigrant on the Overland Trail.<br />
<br />
When mutinies did occur, the ships’ officers were quite willing to execute one of the ringleaders to ensure the safety of the ship, or to flog a number of the conspirators. But with only two exceptions, they paused to seek counsel from the ships’ officers, military officers, and free passengers, and there is only one occasion on which the conspiracy became ‘a convenient cloak for cruelty’.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mutinies]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies_on_Convict_Transports&diff=577Mutinies on Convict Transports2016-07-06T10:04:08Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>Paper delivered to the 7<sup>th</sup> International Congress of Maritime History,</center><br />
<br />
<center>Perth, Western Australia on 27 June 2016</center><br />
<br />
<center>by Gary L. Sturgess </center><br />
<br />
= Abstract =<br />
Of the 47 ships that carried convicts to New South Wales between 1787 and 1801, one in four experienced a mutiny, actual or planned, by the convicts and/or the soldiers. For the most part, this was an Irish problem, with the conspiracies involving hardened political rebels with antipathy to the British Crown.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the course of these mutinies and conspiracies, the violence employed in suppressing them, the conditions that contributed to the fear of mutiny and the use of excess violence, and subsequent legal oversight.<br />
<br />
= 1. False Alarms? =<br />
In a paper written on the ship as he returned home from New South Wales in 1801, recently-retired Governor John Hunter observed that rumours of planned mutinies on convict ships were sometimes used to justify abusive behaviour:<br />
<br />
. . . the creating false alarms of mutiny or insurrection, has some times excused the inforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline, <nowiki>and this, rather than real disease, caused in this ship [the </nowiki>''Hillsborough''] so great a proportion. . . to die. . . The alarm of mutiny is a very convenient cloak for cruelty; and if the prisoners were better treated, there would be less occasion to dread it; but it is an excuse for every thing wicked that a bad man can devise.<ref name="ftn1"> John Hunter, ''Remarks on the Causes of the Colonial Expense of the Establishment of New South Wales, &c'', London, 1802, p.48.</ref><br />
<br />
Two decades later, Commissioner John Bigge, who had been sent out to investigate the transportation system on behalf of the British government, wrote that ‘the fear of combinations amongst the convicts to take the ship, is proved by experience of later years to be groundless. . .’<ref name="ftn2"> John Bigge, ‘Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed by the House of Commons, 19 June 1822, ''House of Commons Parliamentary Papers'', p.3.</ref><br />
<br />
Hunter had never spent time on a convict transport: he had originally sailed out with the First Fleet, but he had done so on the quarter deck of ''HMS Sirius'', one of two naval vessels accompanying the expedition, and the risk of a mutiny on that voyage was minimised by the large number of marines being sent out to the new settlement. Bigge had sailed to New South Wales on the ''John Barry'', a copybook of a convict voyage, with an experienced surgeon superintendent and three teachers, very little sickness, no deaths, and no mutiny or rumour thereof. He had no knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in the early years of transportation.<br />
<br />
In fact, over the first decade and a half of the Australian transportation system, from 1787 until 1801, there were 11 mutinies and conspiracies – more than one in four of the ships that carried male convicts and/or soldiers to New South Wales in that period. Of these, there were five actual mutinies (one of them successful) and six conspiracies that were sufficiently advanced for clear evidence to exist of the mutineers’ intentions (such as large numbers of cut irons or the accumulation of implements that could be used for that purpose).<br />
<br />
There were a further eight ships where rumours of a planned conspiracy provoked some kind of intervention on the part of the ships’ officers, and where the seriousness of the situation is open to debate. What cannot be denied, however, is that many of the mariners and free passengers who sailed on these voyages were terrified of an uprising by the convicts and/or the soldiers (many of the latter having been recently been released from gaol themselves).<br />
<br />
Knowing that James Willcocks, the master of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), would shortly be killed by mutinous soldiers on the outward voyage, it is difficult not to be moved by his increasingly desperate pleas for intervention by the authorities before his ship sailed from Portsmouth. Willcocks was no coward: when his ship had been taken by a French privateer on her previous voyage, he had insisted on remaining on board and had convinced his captors that they should release her.<ref name="ftn3"> Journal of the ''Lady Shore'', IOR L/MAR/B/429B, 19-22 July 1796.</ref><br />
<br />
But as he prepared to sail for New South Wales in April 1797 with a shipload of female convicts and a detachment of British, French and Irish recruits being sent out to the settlement, Willcocks was terrified at the incendiary behaviour of some of the soldiers, and asked for their firearms to be taken away. When their commanding officer, Colonel Francis Grose, came on board to investigate, his concerns were dismissed and Willcocks was accused of being violent and overbearing. The unfortunate man resigned himself to his situation and set about preparing his will.<ref name="ftn4"> J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, pp.188-189; King to the Transport Board, 23 May 1797, TNA ADM108/46/324; Willcocks to King, 27 May 1797, TNA HO42/40/134-136a. His will is at TNA Prob 11/1307.</ref><br />
<br />
Passengers on the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) were mortified when they discovered that 140 of the convicts were being admitted on deck for fresh air at one time. Some of the prisoners had boasted that they would take the ship, and the passengers organised their own watch to supplement the one provided by the guard. James Wilshire, who was going out to the settlement to take up a position in the commissariat, wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Before we left Spithead they said if they should take the ship from us, they would make every one walk the plank. The Captain is a very religious and I believe a very good man, but I am afraid he shows too much lenity to such vile depraved characters, as I am afraid that all the comforts and attention for their good which possibly can be shown will, [at] the first opportunity, be inhumanly repaid by putting us under the greatest tortures of death which possibly be described. . .</nowiki><ref name="ftn5"> James Wilshire, ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 22 June 1800.</ref><br />
<br />
There was no mutiny on the ''Royal Admiral'', and we will never know whether the convicts were serious in their boasts about taking the ship. What cannot be denied is that James Wilshire and his fellow passengers were in fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
Questions of security and freedom mattered – too much liberty and some of the prisoners would mutiny or escape; too little and more of them would die from sickness and disease. If the ships’ officers routinely over-estimated the prospect of an uprising and confined the prisoners too much, they were responsible, in part, for the high mortality rates on the early convict voyages. If the majority of conspiracies were fictions, dreamed up by convict informants to curry favour with their gaolers (and if junior military officers, naval lieutenants and/or naval surgeons would have been less affected by such fantasies), then the contractual system used for transporting convicts prior to 1815 was inherently flawed. If the legal and administrative framework governing these contracts was incapable of preventing excessively violent and abusive responses to mutinies and conspiracies, then government is to be condemned for relying on a system that was incapable of protecting the prisoners in the passage to Botany Bay.<br />
<br />
This paper explores the security arrangements on board the early convict transports (1787-1801), each of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies and alleged conspiracies that occurred during that period, and the manner in which the ships’ officers responded.<ref name="ftn6"> The mutinies include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), the ''Ann'' (1800) and the ''Hercules'' (1801).<br />
<br />
The conspiracies were on the ''Boddington'' and the ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), the ''Britannia'' (1796), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) and the ''Minerva'' (1798).<br />
<br />
The alleged conspiracies were on the ''Scarborough'' (1787 & 1790), the ''Britannia'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800), and the ''Atlas'' (1801). </ref><br />
<br />
= 2. Managing through Contract =<br />
The overwhelming majority of convicts shipped to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors, and in the first three decades – from 1787 until 1815 – the ships’ officers were responsible for their day-to-day management.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the claims of some historians, the First Fleet was managed under same the arrangements, with the difference that the commodore of the fleet (and Governor-elect of the new settlement), Captain Arthur Phillip, had over-riding authority, and chose to intervene in the management of the prisoners throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn7"> On the misunderstanding, see Robert Hughes, ''The Fatal Shore'', London: Collins Harvill, 1987, pp.144-5, based on Charles Bateson, ''The Convict Ships, 1787-1868'', 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., 1985, pp.10-11, 20. Statements about how the contractual system actually worked are based on a detailed analysis of the documentary record for the First Fleet (1787) and the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789), available from the author.</ref><br />
<br />
In the early years, naval lieutenants usually accompanied some of the ships, as ‘agents for transports’: their experience had traditionally been limited to regulating the loading and navigation of naval transports, and while they were charged with the additional responsibility for monitoring the management of the prisoners, they were not qualified for this role.<ref name="ftn8"> No particular instructions were given to the naval agent on the First Fleet, but the agent who accompanied the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) had responsibility for ‘watching over the proceedings of the contractor and his agents’ and ensuring that ‘proper attention’ was paid to the convicts. (Sydney to the Treasury, 24 April 1789, TNA HO36/6/253-256 & TNA T1/667/398-399, 404; Steele to Stephens, 3 June 1789, TNA T27/40/257)<br />
<br />
The agent on the Second Fleet (1790) was to see that the women were kept separate from the men, and to ensure that they were not abused or ill-treated. He was to visit the ships whenever the weather permitted and to ensure that the prisons were washed and aired, and that the convicts were kept clean and had their clothes changed and washed. He was also to see that justice was done to the prisoners, but his authority extended only to keeping a journal and reporting on the masters’ behaviour upon arrival. (Rose to the Navy Board, 15 August 1789, TNA T1/672/209 & TNA T27/40/344; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)<br />
<br />
On the Third Fleet (1791), the agents were simply to ensure that the charter party was complied with, and to keep a journal. (Navy Board to Lieut. Samuel Blow, 25 January 1791, Alexander Hood, ‘Papers relating to Captain Alexander Hood's command of the ''Hebe'', Channel and Irish Sea: relating to the Convict Transport ''Queen''’, 18 November 1790 to 21 April 1791, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM) MKH/9, MS68/099)<br />
<br />
The instructions for the ''Kitty'' (1793) were similar to those of the Second Fleet. (Warrant issued to Lieut. Daniel Woodriff, 4 January 1793, TNA ADM106/2640)<br />
<br />
No more naval agents were appointed until the ''Earl Cornwallis'' (1800), with authority superintend the care, management and victualling of the convicts. (Transport Board to Hunter, 7 August 1800, TNA ADM108/67/270) This was the last occasion on which they were used.</ref><br />
<br />
Following the high mortality on the Second Fleet, naval surgeons were appointed as ‘surgeon superintendents’ on several of the ships, again responsible for oversight rather than direct management. They enjoyed mixed success, and with the outbreak of war in 1793, naval surgeons could no longer be spared for such duties.<ref name="ftn9"> Surgeon superintendents were appointed to the ''Royal Admiral'' and ''Bellona'' (1792), ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), ''Surprize'' (1794), ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), ''Ganges'' and ''Britannia'' (1796), ''Lady Shore'' (1797) and ''Minerva'' (1799), and then no more until the ''Northampton'' (1814). The ''Boddington'', the ''Sugar Cane'', the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', the ''Britannia'' and the ''Minerva'' all carried Irish convicts, and the Irish government persisted with surgeon superintendents long after the British government had ceased to use them. The status of the surgeon on the ''Ganges'' is unclear: he was going out to take up a position in the colony, and was assigned responsibilities for the convicts as well. The master of the ''Lady Shore'' did not intend to carry his own surgeon, presumably because the women would have the freedom of the deck, and he felt he should not be responsible for the health of the soldiers. The government appointed a surgeon instead.<br />
<br />
No details have survived of the instructions for the surgeon superintendents on the ''Royal Admiral'' and the ''Bellona''. On the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', they were to assist the ships’ surgeons ‘in the necessary attendance on the sick’, and enforce ‘a compliance with the several stipulations made with the contractor. . . for the maintenance & supply of the convicts & guard during their continuance on board’. The masters were contractually bound to obey all orders of the surgeon superintendents for the convicts’ welfare. (Late Draft of the Contract for the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', TNA CO201/7/346-9; ‘<nowiki>Draft [Nepean] to W. Richard Kent’, 12 December 1792, TNA CO201/7/420-422</nowiki>)<br />
<br />
We have no details of the instructions given to the subsequent surgeon superintendents, but it is clear from the inquiry into the floggings on the ''Britannia'', that the surgeon of that ship had not been given clear authority over the master. (F.M. Bladen (ed.), ''Historical Records of New South Wales'', 7 Volumes, Sydney: Government Printer, 1893-1901 (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 3, pp.235, 276-7, 488)</ref> It was not until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 that naval surgeons could once again be used, although it would take several years for them to assume full responsibility for the day-to-day management of the prisoners, and some chose to defer to strong-willed captains.<br />
<br />
Thus, from 1787 until a little after 1815, convicts were managed through a chain of authority cascading down from the Home Office to the Navy Board (and after 1794, the Transport Board), from them to the convict contractors and/or the ship owners, and from owners to masters. These early ships were, in essence, floating prisons, managed under contract, with the contractors’ agents responsible for the health and well-being of the convicts as well as the navigation and management of the vessel.<br />
<br />
= 3. Security on Convict Ships =<br />
Prisoners on board convict ships were not confined as a form of punishment, but in order to prevent mutinies and escapes. This was consistent with 18<sup>th</sup> century notions of imprisonment, where the inmates enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the gaol throughout the day. In Britain, prison inmates were generally not provided with meals by their gaolers, receiving instead a county allowance and purchasing their own provisions. Men were often allowed to associate with the women throughout the day, which helps to explain why so many female convicts came on board the convict ships with a young child or in a state of pregnancy.<ref name="ftn10"> Wayne Joseph Sheehan, ‘The London Prison System, 1666-1795’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975, Chapter 4; Margaret DeLacy, ''Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850'', Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
Convict women were freed from their irons as soon as they were brought on board, and it was only the refractory who were confined throughout the course of the voyage. In many cases (until 1819 at least), they were permitted to form sexual relationships with the ships’ officers and (less often) the crew – there was, as yet, no appreciation that, as long as they occupied the subordinate status of prisoners, the women might not be able to make a truly independent decision in such matters.<br />
<br />
Boys were rarely ironed, sick convicts were usually freed from their shackles, and it was common for 20 or 30 of the more trustworthy men to be given the freedom of the deck to assist in sailing the ship and providing cleaning, cooking and nursing services for their fellow prisoners.<br />
<br />
In these early years, the male convicts were generally kept in single irons – shackles around each ankle connected by a chain – and when the weather permitted, they were allowed on deck for several hours a day for exercise, while the prison was cleaned and fumigated. On smaller ships, the convicts’ quarters were located on the lower deck, and on vessels with three decks, they were assigned to the lowest, known as the orlop deck. In wet weather and high seas, and in extreme cold, there was no alternative but to leave the convicts locked down in their quarters.<br />
<br />
Unruly convicts might be loaded with a second set of irons, referred to as ‘double irons’, and in some cases with ‘heavy irons’. If they were particularly troublesome, they might be confined in shackles joined with a bar iron (as opposed to a chain), a neck brace, handcuffs and/or thumbscrews (the latter designed to disable and not a form of torture as some have assumed), or ‘stapled’ to the deck. In the early years of the Australian transportation system, it was only the First Fleet – for the reasons already mentioned – where the male convicts were freed from their irons throughout the entire voyage.<br />
<br />
Security was usually provided by a small detachment of soldiers. When plans for the Australian transportation system were first being developed, Lord Sydney and his under-secretary, Evan Nepean, imagined that the contractors might provide the necessary guards, but this idea was quickly abandoned when it was realised how many marines would accompany the First Fleet.<ref name="ftn11"> ‘Draught to the Lords of the Treasury’, 18 August 1786, TNA CO201/2/3-10; Steele to Commissioners of the Navy, 26 August 1786, Public Record Office, TNA T27/38/336-337; Navy Board Minutes, 18 October 1786, TNA ADM106/2622.</ref><br />
<br />
There were no soldiers on the next voyage, since the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) carried only female convicts, and when plans were being made for the Second Fleet, the Home Office expected (yet again) that the guards would be provided by the contractors. This proposal was abandoned when shipbrokers made it clear that they would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance (because of a concern among underwriters about the prospect of mutiny).<ref name="ftn12"> Wellbank Sharp & Brown to Navy Board, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/232; Navy Board to Thomas Steele, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/231; Treasury to Navy Board, 29 October 1789, TNA T29/61/73.</ref> Plans to raise a new regiment for service in New South Wales were by then well advanced, and these were expedited so that a small detachment (of 15-20 men) could sail on each of the three convict transports that made up the Second Fleet.<br />
<br />
With the outbreak of war, the government had better things to do with its soldiers than to send them to the far side of the globe, and it became commonplace for half a dozen deserters to be taken out of the Savoy Prison and sent on board the convict transports, where they were handed a uniform and musket.<ref name="ftn13"> Lewis to The Honorable Colonel Fox, Chatham Barracks, 31 December 1792, TNA WO4/845/73.</ref><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, this practice caused deep concern among the masters of the convict transports. These men were often unruly, and the ships’ officers feared that they would conspire with the convicts to take the ship. Soldiers were significant players in two of the five mutinies, at least two and possibly four of the six conspiracies, and at least one of the alleged conspiracies in the ships in the period with which this paper is concerned.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Surprize'' (1794), the deserters were initially placed down among the convicts, and subsequently released and appointed as sentries on the main hatch which led into the prison.<ref name="ftn14"> Lewis to Sir Hew Dalrymple, Chatham Barracks, 13 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/92-3; Lewis to John King, 15 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/93; Campbell to the Navy Board, 17 February 1794, TNA T1/728/198-199 & HO35/14; Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797, pp.16-17.</ref> The 74 soldiers on the ''Lady Shore'' were not there to provide security since the ship was carrying female convicts and only two men. But they did include a number of French prisoners of war (who had claimed that they were royalists), some Irish recruits (always regarded as suspect) and several deserters brought directly from the Savoy.<ref name="ftn15"> ‘Return of a Detachment of the New South Wales Corps, embarked at Gravesend on board the Lady Shore, under the Command of Ensign Minchin, 27<sup>th</sup> March 1797’, based on remarks made by Corporal John Spice, TNA WO40/16/60; Statement of Simon Murchison, 21 January 1798, TNA ADM108/19/144 & HO42/44/90a; </ref><br />
<br />
Following the mutiny on that ship, the contractors and ship owners were reluctant to have a military detachment on board, and for several years some of the masters were paid to provide their own security. However, this practice had ceased by 1803, and thereafter soldiers were always employed.<ref name="ftn16"> There were no soldiers on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Ann'' (1800) or the ''Perseus'' and ''Coromandel'' (1802). The use of contracted guards seems to have ended with the ''Rolla'' (1802) – Minutes of the Transport Board, 14 December 1801, TNA ADM108/70/334.</ref><br />
<br />
Contrary to what has often been assumed, the soldiers were not responsible for managing the convicts day-to-day, and they had no say over when the convicts were allowed on deck, what chains they wore, and whether they would be punished. Until sometime after 1815, it was the ships’ officers, and particularly the master and the surgeon, who were responsible for these matters.<br />
<br />
The First Fleet was somewhat different. Phillip gave a great deal of authority to the naval surgeons and assistant surgeons who were accompanying him out to live in the settlement, assigning one to each of the transports carrying the largest numbers of male convicts. He also instructed the marine officers to work in collaboration with the ships’ masters in making decisions about the convicts’ security, and we can find a number of examples of this happening throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn17"> John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales'', Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.70-71; Stephens to Smith, 24 February 1787, TNA ADM2/1178/151; Stephens to Collins, 2 March 1787, National Marines Museum, Portsmouth (hereafter NMaM) Arch11/52/2, p.166.</ref><br />
<br />
When the NSW Corps joined the Second Fleet, the senior officers attempted to take control of convict security, imitating what they (wrongly) believed to have been the situation on the First Fleet. This resulted in considerable tension between the ships’ officers and the officers of the NSW Corps, which was quickly resolved in favour of the former. The principal reason for this was that the contractors and ships’ captains had provided a financial bond of £40 for each convict, guaranteeing that they would be delivered to their specified destination, but the Navy Board also recognised that at the end of the day, the responsibility for the security of the ship must lie with the master.<ref name="ftn18"> Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268; Shapcote to Navy Board, Minute of 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/266; Shapcote to Navy Board, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/267; Navy Board Minutes 23 November 1789, NA ADM106/2631; Note on reverse of Hill to Barnard, 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/259a; Navy Board to Shapcote, 23 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/267; Navy Board to Treasury, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/264; Treasury Minutes, 25 November 1789, TNA T29/61/207. There appears to be no documentary record of the instructions from the War Office to Grose and Hill; John Harris, ‘Paper Delivered by the Surgeon’s Mate of the New South Wales Corps contain<sup>g</sup> the proceed<sup>gs</sup> of Mr Gilbert’, 4 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/404-407.<br />
<br />
Gareth Cole, ‘Who Has Command? The Royal Artillerymen aboard Royal Navy Warships in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars’, and Britt Zerbe, ‘The Marine Officer is a Raw Lad, and therefore Troublesome: Royal Naval Officers and the Officers of the Marines, 1755-1797’, in Helen Doe and Richard Harding (eds.), ''Naval Leadership and Management, 1660-1950'', Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2012, pp.61-76, 77-92</ref><br />
<br />
= 4. Legal Authority on Convict Ships =<br />
The captain’s authority over the convicts arose from the Common Law governing relations between masters and servants. This was also the foundation of the master’s authority over his crew, whom he was legally entitled to chastise physically for the security and wellbeing of the ship.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ship’s company, this arose out of the contract of employment created when the articles of agreement were signed by the crew shortly after coming on board. In the case of the convicts, the master-servant relationship arose from a legal instrument known as the contract of effectual transportation, signed by city and county gaolers and the convict contractors and ships’ masters when the convicts were brought on board. This transferred legal property in the convicts’ service to the master for the duration of the voyage, so that, in law, they were his servants until their arrival in New South Wales.<br />
<br />
Under the law of master and servant, chastisement had to be proportionate. It must be inflicted for sufficient cause; it could not be visited with undue severity. It could be inflicted for past offences, or to promote good discipline on board the ship. It was for this reason that punishment for theft and insolence on most convict transports was usually limited to confinement and a flogging of a dozen or two dozen lashes.<ref name="ftn19"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.125-127, 394-397; Francis Ludlow Holt, ''A System of the Shipping and Navigation Laws of Great Britain'', London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1824 (hereafter Holt), p.260; Richard Henry Dana, ''The Seamen’s Friend'', 4<sup>th</sup> edition, Boston: Thomas Groom and Company, 1845, pp.192-193.</ref><br />
<br />
Mutinies were quite a different matter. The ships’ officers were entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves and ensure the safety of the ship, and if this resulted in the death of a mutineer, they were protected by the privilege of self-defence. Where possible, offenders should be secured so they could be brought before an appropriate tribunal, but the justification of self-defence extended to the execution and the severe flogging of mutineers, if a conference of the ships’ officers concluded that this was necessary for the safety of the ship.<ref name="ftn20"> Abbott, op. cit., pp.127-128; Holt, op. cit., p.261; Richard Henry Dana, op. cit., pp.193-4; Richard Henry Dana, ‘Two Years Before the Mast’, in Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ''Two Years Before the Mast & Other Voyages'', New York: The Library of America, 2005, p.348.</ref><br />
<br />
Comparisons have sometimes been made between the convict trade and the slave trade, but convict transportation was closely regulated by law. No prisoner could be moved from a county gaol to a convict transport or from ship to shore, without appropriate paperwork. When, in November 1786, a young prisoner from Norwich named Susannah Holmes was brought onto the ''Dunkirk'', a convict hulk at Plymouth where she was to be held awaiting the arrival of the First Fleet transports, the captain refused to allow her ten-month old son on board. This was not because of heartless indifference, but because there were no official papers authorising him to receive the child into his establishment. It was only when the Norwich gaoler obtained a written instruction from the Home Secretary that mother and child could be reunited.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Morning Post & Daily Advertiser'', 4 December 1786.</ref><br />
<br />
In English law, a convict was a ‘freeman’ not a slave, and when the matter was eventually dealt with in an insurance case, the courts utterly rejected the suggestion that the prisoners could classified as part of the ships’ cargo.<ref name="ftn22"> The reference to a convict being a ‘freeman’ is from the judgement of Mr Justice Park in an insurance case ''Brown v Stapylton'', Court of Common Pleas, Easter Term 1827, 4 Bingham 119. Park acknowledged that a claim could be made on the life of a slave thrown overboard, a reference to the ''Zong'', but was firm in relation to convicts, he wrote ‘the authorities are clear, that there can be no estimation of the life of a freeman’.</ref> By contrast, in the Africa trade, the slaves regarded in law as a form of property who could be bought and sold, and whose lives could be insured in case of their deaths in the course of a mutiny.<br />
<br />
Following his decision in the infamous case of the ''Zong'', where the ship owners claimed the insurance on slaves deliberately thrown overboard because of an alleged fear that the ship would be lost due to a lack of water and provisions, Lord Mansfield observed:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>. . . if they [the slaves] die a Natural Death they [the underwriters] do not pay but in an Engagement [that is, a mutiny] if they are attacked and the Slaves are killed, they will be paid for them as much as for damages done for goods, and it is frequently done, just as if Horses were killed, they are paid for in the Gross, just as well as for Horses killed, but you don’t pay for Horses that die a Natural death.</nowiki><ref name="ftn23"> This statement is from the records of the Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, and does not appear elsewhere, but it certainly reflects Mansfield’s understanding of the law – see James Oldham, ‘Insurance Litigation Involving the Zong and Other British Slave Ships, 1780-1807’, ''The Journal of Legal History'', (2007) 28:3, pp.299-308 at p.316.</ref><br />
<br />
There was never any suggestion that convicts occupied the status of livestock and there was no question of them being insured as cargo.<br />
<br />
Nor was there any of the cold-blooded murder and mass rape that occurred on Stalin’s convict ships as they carried political and criminal exiles to Siberia between 1932 and 1953. One searches in vain for a single allegation of rape on board the ships that carried British and Irish convicts to Australia between 1787 and 1801 (the focus of this paper).<ref name="ftn24"> Martin J. Bollinger, ''Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West'', Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
This would mean little if the convicts lacked any means of responding to abuse, but from the First Fleet onwards, prisoners could sue the ships’ officers for loss of property, and it was not unusual for complaints about mistreatment to make their way to the Home Secretary (prior to sailing) or the Governor of the colony (upon arrival), and for formal investigations to be launched. By the end of the first decade, convicts were routinely mustered upon their arrival in Sydney Cove and asked whether they had any complaints about their gaolers.<ref name="ftn25"> The first civil court case in Australian history involved two of the convicts, a husband and wife, successfully suing one of the ships’ captains for the theft of their property – Log of the ''Alexander'', 5 April 1788, TNA ADM51/4375; NSW Court of Civil Jurisdiction: Case Papers and Minutes of Proceedings, 1788-1809, 2 July 1788, in SANSW 2/8147; Bruce Kercher and Brent Salter (eds), ''The Kercher Reports'', Sydney: The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History, 2009, pp.15-20; Henry and Susanna Cable to Mrs Dinah Cable, 17 November 1788, copy sent to the Keeper of Norfolk Castle, published in ''Norfolk Chronicle'', 18 July 1789, pp.2-3; Johnson to Nepean, 12 July 1798, in George Mackaness (ed), ‘Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson’, Part II, Australian Historical Monographs, Volume XX (New Series), No.5; John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales''<nowiki> [1790], Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.148-149. For legal commentary on the case, including the suspension of felony attaint, see David Neal, </nowiki>''The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.1-8.<br />
<br />
From the First Fleet onwards, there are numerous examples of a convict complaint making its way to the Home Secretary or the Governor, followed by an investigation. On the First Fleet, see the example of Elizabeth Barber – Paul G. Fidlon, et al (eds.), ''The Journals and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark, 1787-1792'', Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1981, p.35. Some of the convicts on the Second Fleet lodged complaints before sailing about their irons – Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10<sup>th</sup> and 26<sup>th</sup> March 1792, ''House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century'', (83) 1791-92, (hereafter ‘Accounts and Papers’) pp.259-368, at p.334.<br />
<br />
The first formal mention of a muster relates to the ''Britannia'' (1796) – ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ship ''Britannia'' from the Downs to Port Jackson and China, Commencing upon the 3<sup>rd</sup> of September 1796 & Ending upon the 30<sup>th</sup> of June 1798’ (hereafter Journal of the ''Britannia''), Dixson Library, SLNSW MSQ35, 30 May 1797. However, it is not clear that it was formalised at that time. The practice was certainly routine by the ''Minerva'' (1799) – Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), p.144.</ref><br />
<br />
When it came to mutiny, these protections were imperfect since public officials and judicial officers were reluctant to second-guess decisions made on an isolated ship in the middle of the Atlantic, but as we shall see, the legal and administrative oversight of convict ships generally served to constrain excessively abusive conduct.<br />
<br />
= 5. Mutinies and Conspiracies =<br />
Fourteen of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies or alleged conspiracies in the period 1787 to 1801 took place or were intended to take place in the first month after sailing, the intention being to take the ship to France or North America.<ref name="ftn26"> For one of the mutinies we have no details.</ref> The only successful mutiny, that of the ''Lady Shore'', occurred seven weeks after sailing and the soldiers took the ship into La Plata, a Spanish port (in what is now Argentina). This was a risky course of action, and the Spanish authorities were at first uncertain how to treat the mutineers.<ref name="ftn27"> John Black, ''An Authentic Narrative of the Mutiny on Board the Ship Lady Shore'', Ipswich, 1798, pp.34-5.</ref> It followed that once the convict transports had entered the South Atlantic, they were generally free from any serious threat of mutiny.<br />
<br />
Among the mutinies and the conspiracies that reached an advanced stage of planning, there were two broad strategies – to attack the sentries when the convicts were on deck for exercise (by far the most common) and/or to take one of the ship’s senior officers, preferably the captain, hostage while there were inspecting the prison, and then to negotiate.<br />
<br />
There was understandable fear of an uprising among the hardened political rebels which some of these ships were carrying, and this fear was not unjustified. Of the 18 voyages where the convicts were involved, nine involved Irish convicts: the ratio of transports carrying Irish convicts in this period was only around 25 percent. Of the five actual mutinies, three involved Irish convicts, and the uprising on the ''Lady Shore'' included Irish soldiers (although it was not led by them). Four of the six proven conspiracies were also planned by Irish political prisoners. So to a considerable extent, this was an Irish problem.<br />
<br />
Soldiers played some part in two of the five mutinies and two of the six conspiracies, although they were thought to have been involved in at least two of the other conspiracies. Crew members were involved in at least three of the mutinies and conspiracies, and there were concerns of them possibly playing a role in four others. Women convicts were potentially important because they had the freedom of the deck; they were thought to have been involved in two cases, and there were suspicions of them playing a role in two more.<br />
<br />
== 5.1 Mutinies ==<br />
Among the convict mutinies, the pattern was broadly similar to that of the ''Albemarle'', one of the convict transports in the Third Fleet (1791) and the first ship to experience a convict uprising. She was 13 days out of Portsmouth, and had been separated by storm from the other ships in her division. There was no advance warning. A number of convicts had been allowed on deck for exercise in the morning, at a time when most of the watch were aloft. Several of the prisoners rushed the sentries, seizing their weapons and were charging the helmsman when the captain – who happened to be on deck at the time – slipped into his cabin, grabbed his blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders in the shoulder. This caused the mutineers to abandon their attack and retreat below.<br />
<br />
All hands were called on deck, the small arms were issued, and a search party was sent below. They returned with three of the ringleaders, the first of whom confessed, probably under the threat of hanging, and named the other two as the principals, one of whom was the man that had been wounded in the affray. A conference was convened between the naval agent, the captain, the ship’s officers and men, and the soldiers, and (as the captain later wrote):<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm; this had the desired effect upon the convicts in general, who immediately sent us a letter confessing all their horrid intentions, and of taking the ship to America.<ref name="ftn28"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
Two other prisoners seem to have died as a result of their injuries. Another two were given two dozen lashes, and the informant was given three dozen, a remarkably mild response to a mutiny, where some of the ship’s officers might well have lost their lives. Two of the crew who had passed knives to the convicts (probably for cutting through their shackles), and otherwise assisted, were placed in irons and delivered to British authorities at Madeira.<ref name="ftn29"> On the convicts who seem to have died from their wounds – Extract of a Letter from Lieutenant Young, 24 April 1791, TNA T1/694/208. On the floggings and the crew members – Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the notable exception that the participants were not Irish, the insurrection on the ''Albemarle'' was typical of a convict mutiny – a sudden attack on the sentries while the prisoners were on deck for exercise, assistance from some of the crew or the guard, a successful counter-attack led by the captain and crew rather than the soldiers, confessions extracted through flogging or the threat of something worse, a formal conference of the ship’s officers and crew, a unanimous decision that prompt action must be taken for the safety of the ship, the execution of one or two mutineers, followed by a relatively moderate amount of flogging and closer confinement.<br />
<br />
== 5.2 Conspiracies ==<br />
Planned mutinies that were discovered before an attack was launched were usually exposed by prisoners who were in some sense outsiders (gentleman convicts, or in one case, a Jewish prisoner), or by men who had the confidence of the ship’s officers (convicts who had been freed from their chains to work about the ship, and/or were regular informants). It might be regarded as strange that ‘trusties’ or informants would be approached by the conspirators, but it was valuable, if at all possible, to have the assistance of someone – soldier, crew member, female convict or trustie – who had the freedom of the deck. <br />
<br />
There is much less uniformity in the pattern of the conspiracies, since the details were pieced together from informants’ accounts and whatever could be ascertained through flogging the alleged conspirators. In either case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there was some measure of lies or fantasy, although in the cases described here as conspiracies, there was physical evidence of the intention to mutiny – in most cases, a significant number of cut irons or the accumulation of cutting implements. If the ship were in port, that would indicate an intent to escape, but if they were at sea, then the removal of their irons, or the accumulation of a significant number of knives and other metal objects, could only mean an intention to mutiny.<br />
<br />
The ''Barwell'' (1797) was carrying English convicts, but the conspiracy seems to have emerged among the soldiers, some of whom had been riotous since coming on board. Two of the guards (at least one of whom was Irish) had been court-martialled and sent ashore, and the sergeant of the guard had run from the ship before sailing with several of the crew. The naval agent at Portsmouth had reported to his superiors: ‘The ''Barwell''’s officers consider the guard as worthless, and as little deserving of trust as the convicts!’<ref name="ftn30"> Patton to the Transport Board, 24 October 1797, TNA ADM108/49/395.</ref><br />
<br />
Four and a half months into the voyage, two of the convicts reported that several of the soldiers had approached them about launching a mutiny. The muskets had been loaded, and they would be handed over to the convicts once they had commenced the attack. A search was conducted and a number of convicts were found to be out of irons, and the bulkhead (which functioned as the bars to the prison) had been tampered with.<br />
<br />
Following a consultation among the ship’s officers, somewhere around two dozen of the convicts were flogged, most with two or three dozen lashes, although the ringleaders were given six, eight and ten dozen. By the standards of the day (and in comparison with the punishments handed out to mutinous soldiers or marines), this was not especially severe. Three of the soldiers were flogged – several dozen lashes – and confined among the prisoners. There was also evidence against one of the two Ensigns – the most high-ranking of the soldiers on board – but it was not unequivocal, and he was confined to his quarters for the rest of the voyage.<ref name="ftn31"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37; ''R v George Bond'', Court of Vice Admiralty, Letters of Marque and Related Documents, Registrar of the Court, 1795-1812, 20 August 1798, TNA HCA1/64 & SRNSW, 5/1163, p.91ff.</ref><br />
<br />
== 5.3 Alleged Conspiracies ==<br />
With the eight alleged conspiracies, the ships’ officers were relying entirely on what they had been told by convict informants and what could be extracted from confessions obtained through flogging or the threat of the same. It was these cases that Hunter and Bigge had in mind when they wrote of false alarms and the groundless fear of combinations, although there were fewer of them than there were actual mutinies and proven conspiracies.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for us to know today, if it was then, which of these supposed conspiracies were real and which were not. Most of the actual conspiracies were first revealed to the ships’ officers in exactly the same way as the ones for which we have little or no external evidence.<br />
<br />
In several cases, there is evidence that the informants were expecting favourable treatment as a result, but given that they were placing their lives in jeopardy by informing on their fellow-prisoners, this is perhaps not surprising. And on several occasions, the alleged conspirators claimed that the master had deliberately suborned witnesses, through offers of payment or other favours, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Then as now, it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of these stories.<ref name="ftn32"> Allegations were made of witnesses suborned or threatened in cases involving the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Barwell'' (1797), and the ''Minerva'' (1798).</ref><br />
<br />
What is clear, is that the ships’ officers were terrified of a convict mutiny. In almost all cases, the alleged plot involved the immediate execution of the ship’s officers, and the fate of Captain Willcocks and his chief mate (on the ''Lady Shore'') seems to confirm that their lives were at risk, particularly when (as was almost always the case) they took the lead in resisting an attack.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning of the Australian transportation system, there was good reason to suspect that the convicts would take the ship if they could. Of the last three ships sent to North America (in 1784, in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence), two had been successfully taken by the convicts.<ref name="ftn33"> Regarding the mutiny on the ''Swift'' and the ''Mercury'' (1784), see Emma Christopher, ''A Merciless Place'', Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010, Chapter 12.</ref> And in the spring and summer of 1786, in the months before the First Fleet was commissioned, there had been two serious insurrections on the hulks, resulting in a number of deaths.<ref name="ftn34"> ‘Report of all the Convicts. . . on board the ''Fortunee'' Hulk. . . from the 20<sup>th</sup> February to 26<sup>th</sup> May 1786’, TNA T1/638; ‘Report of Convicts under Sentence of Transportation. . ., on board the ''Censor'' Hulk. . . from the 12<sup>th</sup> April to the 12<sup>th</sup> July 1786’, TNA T1/634.</ref><br />
<br />
These fears were periodically reinforced by reports of conspiracies on the smaller vessels that carried the convicts from the outer regions of Britain and Ireland to their port of embarkation. In 1789, there was a plot to take the ''Peggy'', a small vessel bringing down some prisoners from Scotland, revealed by a convict informant, Thomas Watling, who would go on to become a prominent artist in the colony.<ref name="ftn35"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 11 & 13 June 1789.</ref> The following year, there was an insurrection on a sloop carrying convicts from Lancaster to Portsmouth, which required the intervention of the navy before it was finally put down.<ref name="ftn36"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 1 February 1790, p.2.</ref> There was another conspiracy on one of the convict ships in Ireland in 1796, again revealed by one of the prisoners.<ref name="ftn37"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796</ref><br />
<br />
And of course, the taking of the ''Lady Shore'' and the murder of Captain Willcox received significant attention in the British press in May 1798 when the news of the mutiny first arrived home, and again in late 1799 when one of the mutineers who had been captured was tried and executed.<ref name="ftn38"> ''Mirror of the Times'', 23 November 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25 November 1799; ''General Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Whitehall Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 27 November 1799; ''Times'', 27 November 1799, p.3; ''Observer'', 1 December 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 4 December 1799; ''Times'', 5 December 1799, p.3; ''Morning Herald'', 5 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 20 December 1799; ''Times'', 21 December 1799, p.3; ''Oracle & Daily Advertiser'', 21 December 1799; ''Naval Chronicle'' II, July to Dec 1799, pp.629-630; ''St James’s Chronicle or British Evening Post'', 21-24 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23-25 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'' & ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25-27 December 1799.</ref><br />
<br />
As already noted, these fears were heightened when there were Irish convicts on board, particularly political insurrectionists, many of whom were hardened by civil war and what would now be regarded as terrorist activities. Joseph Holt, an Irish rebel leader who sailed with his family on the ''Minerva'' (1799), and enjoyed the freedom of the deck, told the chief mate that he was a fool to have thought of trusting him with a gun when the ship being chased by a privateer: given half a chance, he said, he would have turned it on the poop deck and freed as many of the convicts as he could.<ref name="ftn39"> T. Crofton Croker (ed.), ''Memoirs of Joseph Holt'', London: Henry Colburn, 1838, Vol. 1, pp.47-52.</ref><br />
<br />
Similar concerns were held whenever there were republicans on board. Rumours of conspiracy followed the so-called Scottish Martyrs – gentlemen exiles rather than convicts – who were sent out to New South Wales on the ''Surprize'' (1794). And while the claims that they were at the heart of conspiracies on board that ship were probably unfounded, there is no doubt that these men had been deliberately provocative in stirring up republican sentiments among the officers and passengers, and in forming improper relationships with some of the prisoners.<br />
<br />
Those ships that sailed in the immediate aftermath of the extensive naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore in 1797, the ''Lady Shore'' among them, had additional reasons to be concerned. The sailors on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) refused to sail unless a prisoner named Thomas McCann was removed from the ship. McCann had been a sailor on the ''Sandwich'' and had originally been sentenced to death for his part in the Nore mutiny. Since coming on board, he had been organising protests among the convicts over the state of their provisions, and the crew were concerned that he would lead a mutiny. Even though he was removed from the ship, his influence persisted, with the convicts continuing to organise protests when they felt that they were not being given their full rations.<ref name="ftn40">= William Noah, Voyage to Sydney in the Ship Hillsborough 1798-1799. . ., Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1978, p.19; G.E. Manwaring and Bonamy Dobree, The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and the Nore in 1797, Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2004, p.277. =<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
So while we cannot be certain which of these alleged conspiracies were real, there were often good reasons for the ships’ officers to be concerned. Hunter’s and Bigge’s criticisms need to be read with some scepticism.<br />
<br />
= 6. Responding to a Convict Mutiny =<br />
== 6.1 Suppressing the Insurrection ==<br />
The initial response to a convict mutiny was usually led by the ship’s officers and not by the military guard. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was Captain George Bowen who seized a blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders, causing the mutineers to retreat. With the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the search of the convicts’ quarters for weapons was led by the Captain, Michael Hogan, and then an attack on the prison shortly thereafter when the conspirators attempted to break out. In the case of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), it was Captain John Willcocks and his first mate who immediately responded, while (according to one report) the ranking military officer was hiding under his bed.<ref name="ftn41"> On the ''Albemarle'' (1791) – George Bowen, ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292 & HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488; Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a; Account of Robert Cock, TNA CO201/6/294-295 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-9.<br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis ''(1795) – Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.<br />
<br />
On the ''Lady Shore'' (1797) – J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, p.195</ref><br />
<br />
Captain James Stewart of the ''Ann'' (1800) was undertaking his regular inspection of the convicts’ quarters when he was seized by some of the prisoners, as part of a coordinated plan to take the ship. He escaped with the assistance of several other convicts, and while the details are scant, he was part of the group that rescued his mate and the gunner. On the ''Hercules'' (1801), Captain Luckyn Betts was the first man out of the cabin to confront the mutineers who had charged the quarter deck, and had a blunderbuss snapped in his face. (It misfired.)<ref name="ftn42"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
The affray rarely lasted long. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was a matter of seconds; on the ''Hercules'' (1801), it seems to have lasted about 15 minutes. However, there was often a period of some uncertainty before the security of the ship was fully restored. Having quelled the insurrection, the ship’s officers would search the prison, and bring up those who were suspected of being involved. They would also inspect the prisoners’ irons, to ascertain whether they had been cut. Metal implements, particularly knives, were used for sawing through the iron, and the convicts would disguise their efforts by filling the furrows with coloured wax.<br />
<br />
== 6.2 Investigating Rumours ==<br />
Where the ship’s officers were informed of the conspiracy by one of the convicts, the master would sometimes wait for better evidence. On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), two of the prisoners passed a message to Captain Hogan, who had them brought aft for questioning. They revealed that the sergeant of the guard had offered to provide them with knives in return for payment. Hogan asked the ranking officer, an ensign, to have the troops fall in with their kits, which were searched. Sergeant Ellis was found to have six knives in his bag, and the ensign revealed that several days before, the sergeant had lied to him about having lost four of these knives, and he had given him two more. The touch-holes of six firelocks had also been spiked, and two pistols sent to Ellis for cleaning had been disabled. A search was conducted of the prison, but it appears that nothing of significance was found. Hogan decided to wait for stronger evidence. He cautioned his mates and the petty officers, along with some of the seamen whom he particularly trusted, to watch for any sudden attack, and he later wrote that he was keeping a strict eye on the conduct of the soldiers. It was only when he obtained further evidence from another source that Hogan began a formal interrogation of the suspects.<ref name="ftn43"> TNA CO201/13/146; HRNSW Vol.3, p.110.</ref><br />
<br />
Captain William Hingston, master of the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), reacted in a similar way. He was cautious about the information he had been supplied by a convict informant, and after arming the crew, set a trap designed to encourage the mutineers to show their hand.<ref name="ftn44"> Ebenezer Beriah Kelly, ''Autobiography'', Norwich: John W. Stedman, 1856, pp.17-19.</ref> Much the same appears to have happened on the ''Minerva'' (1799), where a number of stories were passed to the captain before any action was taken. Still uncertain as to the seriousness of the plot, the ship’s officers revolved to lock the supposed ringleaders in a strong room rather than flogging them to extract confessions. More specific stories emerged later in the voyage, when stronger action was taken.<ref name="ftn45"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), pp.83-84, 88-89.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) one of the passengers, a junior official going out to take up a post at New South Wales, reported rumours from among the convicts. Captain William Wilson reacted in a measured way and tightened security.<ref name="ftn46"> For example, Wilson had a barricade constructed across the deck, and allowed the passengers to organise their own watch – Journal of the ''Royal Admiral'', IOR L/MAR/B/338-I and ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 20 & 23 June 1800.</ref> On the ''Hercules'' (1801), where there was later a violent insurrection, the master made no response when the first stories emerged.<ref name="ftn47"> See the evidence of Thomas Trotter, Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court, 6 July 1802, CO201/21/245-246.</ref> The master of the ''Atlas'' (1801), which sailed at the same time as the ''Hercules'', suspected that the convicts had poisoned the guard, a highly improbable scenario. Captain Richard Brooks was jumping at shadows, but he investigated the supposed conspiracy over several weeks, trying to make sense of the limited evidence available to him, all the time allowing the convicts on deck (carefully chained) for daily exercise.<ref name="ftn48"> Journal of the ''Atlas'', IOR L/MAR/B/27E, various entries from 27 February to 11 April 1802.</ref><br />
<br />
It was common for the ships’ officers to flog the convicts in order to extract a confession, and punishment would often cease once a prisoner had admitted his role and implicated others. An officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) explained to this brother that following the revelation of the conspiracy: ‘We got upon deck the ringleaders, to the number of forty, who, after a severe punishment, confessed the whole.’<ref name="ftn49"> Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.</ref> Captain Hogan wrote: ‘When each man received punishment, he gave information against others, evading as much as possible the part he had in it himself. . .’<ref name="ftn50"> TNA CO201/13/150a; HRNSW Vol.3, p.109.</ref><br />
<br />
A British official at Madeira wrote about the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) when the ship called there briefly to offload the two sailors suspected of being involved. He reported that when the first of the ringleaders was brought on deck, he was threatened with immediate hanging: ‘he, from terror, declared that if they would pardon him he would discover the whole plot, which he accordingly did’. He named another two men as the ringleaders, one of whom had been wounded in the affray.<ref name="ftn51"> Robert Cock to the Duke of Leeds, 13 May 1791, TNA CO201/6/294-295; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-449.</ref><br />
<br />
The probative value of evidence extracted through flogging or the threat of hanging, is of course highly questionable, and such practices had ceased to be employed in the British criminal justice system. The author has been unable to find any precedents for this extraordinary practice on board these merchant ships, which was not challenged by any of the authorities at the time.<br />
<br />
== 6.3 The Ship’s Council ==<br />
There appears to have been a convention that masters would convene a conference of the ship’s officers, and ideally, the passengers and crew members as well, before making any firm decisions about the response to a mutiny, particularly when a decision involved the execution of one of the mutineers. There also seems to have been a practice of including a relatively senior officer from another ship, if one was in company, or that individuals independent of the ship’s officers would be involved.<br />
<br />
There was no legal obligation in English maritime law to consult with the ship’s officers before disciplining the crew, but according to Abbott (1802):<br />
<br />
. . . the master should, except in cases requiring his immediate interposition, take the advice of the persons next below him in authority, as well as to prevent the operation of passion in his own breast, as to secure witnesses to the propriety of his conduct. For the master on his return to this country may be called upon by action at law, to answer to a mariner, who has been beaten or imprisoned by him, or by his order, in the course of a voyage; and for the justification of his conduct, he should be able to shew not only that there was a sufficient cause for chastisement, but also that the chastisement itself was reasonable and moderate, otherwise the mariner may recover damages proportionate to the injury received.<ref name="ftn52"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.126-127.</ref><br />
<br />
The masters of East Indiamen were expected to bring an offender before a ‘consultation’ of officers prior to issuing any punishments, and there appears to have been a widespread convention that British seafarers would not be discharged in foreign ports without formal consultation.<ref name="ftn53"> On the former, see Peter Earle, ''Sailors: English Merchant Seamen, 1650-1775'', London: Methuen, 2007, p.154.</ref> The first known example of this is the Strange fur-trading expedition to the north-west coast of America in 1785-86 (in the ''Captain Cook'' and the ''Experiment'') where the owners, David Scott & Co of Bombay, wanted a council of the officers to be held if unruly men were to be put ashore at a foreign port:<br />
<br />
. . . & as You have not the aid of martial Law, we have to desire Your discharging every officer and man that may show the least tendency to subvert discipline, at the first English Port or at China. In such case we would advise Your holding a Council of the Officers, & entering their report on the Log Book; as we feel an interest in every man who embarks on the expedition, it would be pleasing to see that no person was discharged but in consequence of the voices of the Officers.<ref name="ftn54"> David Scott & Co, ‘Sailing Directions to James Strange Esq., Director of the Exploring Expedition to the No. West Coast of America and towards the North Pole’, 7 December 1785, in ''Records of Fort St. George: James Strange’s Journal and Narrative of the Commercial Expedition from Bombay to the Northwest Coast of America'', Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1982, p.35. </ref><br />
<br />
And legislation passed in 1799 for the further regulation of the slave trade, prescribed that the masters of ships engaged in that trade were not to discharge unruly mariners without first consulting with one of His Majesty’s ships of war.<ref name="ftn55"> Abbott, pp.128-129.</ref><br />
<br />
While there was no comparable body of law or practice relating to the transportation of convicts, it is clear that most of the masters acknowledged the convention that they should consult with their officers, at least when exemplary punishments were required following a mutiny. What is perhaps of greater interest, is that over time, this formalised into a legal obligation.<br />
<br />
As previously noted, there was no legal authority to try and punish mutineers, be they crew members, passengers, soldiers or convicts; any execution, flogging or confinement had to be undertaken as an act of self-defence. It is for this reason that most accounts of these ships’ conferences explicitly state that they executed the prisoner for the preservation of the ship and her crew. It was also conventional to report that such decisions were unanimous.<ref name="ftn56"> Examples include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Minerva'' (1798), and the ''Ann'' (1800).</ref><br />
<br />
Thus, on the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the master convened a conference that included the naval agent (a naval lieutenant assigned to the convoy for monitoring the navigation), the ship’s officers and crew, and the soldiers. The naval agent specifically noted in his account that there were no other ships in company to hold a formal trial. According to the captain:<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm. . .<ref name="ftn57"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the First Mate wrote:<br />
<br />
It was therefore agreed unanimously, by all the free persons on board, that the ringleaders should be punished with severity, which was put into execution. . . Had these steps not been taken the ship could never have been secure, as it evidently appeared the convicts, headed by the serjeant, had bound themselves by oath to murder the captain and the principal officers.<ref name="ftn58"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.107-108.</ref><br />
<br />
While we lack a detailed account of several ships, there appear to have been ship’s conferences on all of the vessels where mutinies or conspiracies occurred, except three. One of these was the ''Lady Shore'', where the mutiny was successful, but in the other two cases – the ''Britannia'' (1796), the master was strongly censured and on the ''Hercules'' (1801), found guilty of manslaughter for the failure to consult. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the alleged conspiracies, since in some cases, the reaction was mild, but we know of ship’s councils in two of the eight cases.<br />
<br />
It was usual for there to be a judicial inquiry when these ships arrived in Sydney, particularly where men had died, where there had been a significant amount of flogging, and/or where there was a formal protest by one of the convicts or military officers. As long as there had been a conference and unanimity, it was rare to second-guess the decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of the mutiny or conspiracy. However, it was also rare for the authorities in Sydney to impose further punishment on the conspirators, even where the ship’s officers had deferred making a decision until their arrival.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Britannia'' (1796), there had been extensive flogging and some of those punished had subsequently died. A judicial inquiry was held and, as the Judge Advocate reported in his journal: <br />
<br />
As these punishments had been inflicted by the direction of the master, without consulting any of the officers on board as to the measure of them he was highly censured. . .<ref name="ftn59"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates. . . Charges Imputed to Captain Dennett’, 13 June 1797, TNA CO201/14/31ff; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board the ''Britannia'', 5/1156, No.13, Reel 1929 or COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
The second case was that of the ''Hercules'' (1801), where Captain Betts was prosecuted in the Court of Vice Admiralty, for the deaths of 12 or 13 convicts in the course of the insurrection, and for executing one of the ringleaders in the immediate aftermath. He was cleared of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of the mutiny – indeed, very little evidence was taken in relation to this charge, so it appears that the court did not regard it as a matter requiring serious attention.<br />
<br />
However, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter on the second charge and fined £500, a substantial sum of money. Based on the evidence at the trial, it seems likely that all of the officers agreed with his course of action, but he had failed to conduct a formal consultation; and the execution had possibly occurred an hour after the mutiny was over (although there was conflicting evidence on this point). The sentence was suspended for confirmation by the Home Secretary, and the ultimate outcome is unknown.<ref name="ftn60"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254.</ref><br />
<br />
== 6.4 Punishment ==<br />
While the execution, flogging and/or confinement of mutineers were strictly-speaking not punishments, but rather acts of self-defence necessary to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew, contemporaries were not always careful in making this distinction.<br />
<br />
''Executions''<br />
<br />
There were executions on four of the 11 ships where an actual mutiny or conspiracy was involved. Two of the ringleaders of the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) were hung at the fore-yard arm following a ship’s council. Lieutenant Robert Parry Young, the naval agent, was clearly uncomfortable with the decision, writing to the Admiralty that it was for the general good and the safety of the ship: ‘I had no authority for so doing but the moment required a severe example’ and he hoped their Lordships would support him if there were any bad consequences. ‘It was with difficulty I could prevent the ship’s company from executing more of them from revenge, for had the convicts not been repulsed, the massacre would have been considerable on our part.’<ref name="ftn61"> Young to Stephens, 24 April 1791, TNA HO28/8/99-100a; TNA T1/694; TNA ADM106/2638, 7 July 1791; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-8.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the principals was shot in the presence of all the convicts, who had been assembled on deck for the purpose. Captain Betts shot one of the ringleaders on the ''Hercules'' (1801), not so much as a considered act designed to suppress any further intentions of mutiny, but on an adrenalin high, egged on by the other officers on the quarter deck.<ref name="ftn62"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
We have few details of what transpired on the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), but the decision was taken by the naval agent, following what was described as ‘the necessary inquiry’. The one brief account we have of the episode says that many of the convicts were out of irons, but there is no mention of an actual uprising. There appears to have been some kind of judicial inquiry upon arrival in New South Wales, since the Judge Advocate wrote that the Agent:<br />
<br />
. . . thought it indispensable to the safety of the ship to cause an instant example to be made, and ordered one of the convicts who was found out of irons to be executed that night. Others he punished the next morning; and by these measures, as might well be expected, threw such a damp on the spirits of the rest, that he heard no more during the voyage of attempts or intentions to take the ship.<ref name="ftn63"> David Collins, ''An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales''<nowiki> [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975 (hereafter Collins), Vol.1, p.261.</nowiki></ref><br />
<br />
It is difficult for us to imagine why such an extreme response was considered necessary, but it needs to be placed in context. These men were bound together in a small society, surrounded by water, thousands of miles from the nearest British authorities. The punishment for ‘piracy’, the legal term for a mutiny at sea, was hanging on the shoreline at Execution Dock. The British Navy would go to great lengths to track down mutineers who successfully took one of their ships, sending the ''Pandora'' all the way out to Tahiti, in an attempt to capture the men who had taken the ''Bounty''.<ref name="ftn64"> Geoffrey Rawson, ''Pandora’s Last Voyage'', London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd,'' ''1963.</ref><br />
<br />
In some ways, the early Australian convict transports were in a similar position to the wagon trains that crossed the American prairies in the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where the emigrants were obliged to make and enforce their own system of justice once they had moved beyond the boundaries of the state. When confronted with a killing by one of their number, the emigrants were obliged to organise a search party, constitute a court, make a decision on guilt or innocence, agree on a form of punishment and carry out the same.<br />
<br />
As with merchant ships, they relied on a form of popular justice, meeting as a body politic to make decisions rather than deferring to the notional leader of the company. And, as with the merchant ships, it was not unusual for them to appoint strangers – individuals from other companies, or people they had met along the trail – to perform the functions of judge and jury.<ref name="ftn65"> John Phillip Reid, ''Policing the Elephant: Crime, Punishment, and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail'', San Marino, California: Huntingdon Library, 1997, pp.110, 117-132.</ref><br />
<br />
Expulsion was an option, but whether from a sense of justice or a concern for their fellow emigrants, there were numerous occasions on which they resigned themselves to the necessity of taking the offender’s life. As a journal-keeper on one of these wagon trains wrote:<br />
<br />
It was justice conscientiously administered, without law – an action necessary under the circumstances. . . It was a matter the necessity of which was deplorable, but the execution of which was imposed upon those who were on the spot and uncovered the convincing facts.<ref name="ftn66"> Ibid p.196.</ref><br />
<br />
There were, however, a number of significant differences between American wagon trains and British merchant ships. The ships’ masters were expected, as a matter of convention and ultimately of law, to organise a conference of all the officers before making life and death decisions. In taking a life, they were expected to have acted in the immediate aftermath of a violent uprising, and for the safety of the ship; unlike the emigrants on the Overland Trail, they were not permitted to organise a criminal trial and execute justice in their own right. Unlike the wagon trains, merchant ships engaged in the convict trade were bound by a formal system of justice, and they were subject to the criminal law once they arrived at their destination.<br />
<br />
''Flogging''<br />
<br />
Flogging was relatively common on merchant and naval ships, for the maintenance of order, and it was generally necessary on ships carrying convicted criminals to the Antipodes. It was a disciplinary measure, similar to the corporal punishment imposed (at the time) by a parent on a child, a teacher on a student or a master on a servant. In the case of insurrections, it was also justified as a means of self-defence to restore the safety of the ship.<br />
<br />
In most cases, floggings were confined to the ringleaders, or to convicts who had been caught out of irons, and the number of lashes was relatively few. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), for example, once two of the ringleaders had been hung, punishments were administered to a handful of others – three dozen to one and two dozen to another two. This was an extraordinarily mild response, given the seriousness of the threat to the ship.<ref name="ftn67"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the ringleaders was shot and another was given 250 lashes. That was a serious punishment, but properly administered it should not have threatened the man’s life. Floggings of this kind were frequently handed out to soldiers and marines for offences that were much less serious.<ref name="ftn68"> Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Barwell'' (1797), the risk of a mutiny was very real, with a significant number of the convicts out of irons. The ship’s journal is difficult to read, but it appears that several dozen men were given two or three dozen lashes, a mild punishment, however one of the ringleaders was given ten dozen, another eight and several six. This was a measured response and it would not have been considered inappropriate by the authorities in Sydney or at home.<ref name="ftn69"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37.</ref><br />
<br />
The punishment on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) was more extensive. As noted above, there was clear evidence in this case that the sergeant of the guard had been collecting knives so the convicts could cut their irons, and he had disabled many of the sentries’ weapons. A significant number of convicts had freed themselves from their shackles. It will be recalled that Captain Hogan was slow in responding, waiting until he had clear evidence that the conspiracy was real, and he interrogated the suspected mutineers over several days, collecting detailed statements. Forty-two men and eight women were punished, in varying degrees. There was a second conspiracy around four weeks later, and on this occasion, around forty of the leaders were ‘severely punished’.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not explain how many lashes they were given. The only occasion where a number is mentioned is two dozen lashes given to one of the soldiers, a mild punishment. The subsequent inquiry by the Judge Advocate concluded:<br />
<br />
. . . we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn70"> ‘Inquiry re Conspiracy. . . ‘, SRNSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17, p.387; TNA CO201/13/160a.</ref><br />
<br />
''Confinement and Removal from the Ship''<br />
<br />
Where military officers, gentlemen convicts or crew members were involved, and/or where the evidence was unclear, ships’ captains were much less willing to resort to violent punishment and suspected conspirators were confined in some way. <br />
<br />
''The ship’s company:'' The crew members on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) who were thought to have assisted with the mutiny were confined and offloaded at Madeira: there is no evidence that they were flogged, and it is unlikely that they were later punished in any other way. This was not unusual: when sailing in company, it was common for unruly crew members to be removed from the ship and placed on board the commodore, or one of the other vessels in the convoy.<ref name="ftn71"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport’, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Surprize'' (1794), Captain Campbell had become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of his Chief Mate, a Mr Macpherson. At a time when there were already allegations of a conspiracy among the convicts, some of the crew claimed that Macpherson had deliberately set the sails so as to cause her to drop back in the fleet. Campbell spoke to the commodore (''HMS Suffolk'') and had him removed from the ship. While the Scottish Martyrs sought to make a great deal of this, it is clear that Macpherson was openly associating with the republican exiles, and had suffered some kind of breakdown; he had lost the confidence of his captain. There was nothing untoward about Campbell’s response: two weeks later, the master of the ''Ponsborne'', an East Indiaman sailing in company with the ''Surprize'', sent three men, including the boatswain’s mate, on board the ''Suffolk'' for disorderly behaviour, receiving three others in their place.<ref name="ftn72"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SRNSW 5/1156, pp.2, 4 & 12<nowiki>; </nowiki>Patrick Campbell at TNA CO201/12/188-189 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.860-1; Journal of the ''Ponsborne'', IOR L/MAR/B/462J, 15 May 1794.</ref><br />
<br />
''The military guard:'' One of the soldiers on the ''Boddington'' (1793) was placed in irons for the duration of the voyage, with the expectation that he would be punished in the colony. There is no evidence that he was.<ref name="ftn73"> Kent to Nepean, 18 March 1793, TNA HO42/25/160-161a.</ref> On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), Sergeant Ellis – against whom there was clear evidence of his complicity in the plot – was confined on the poop deck and then flogged to extract a confession, although the number of lashes is unknown. One of the privates was also flogged, twice, receiving two dozen the second time, but another two were merely confined and one of these had his head shaved.<ref name="ftn74"> TNA CO201/13/150a, 156, 158a; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.103-109.</ref><br />
<br />
''Convicts:'' While Captain Campbell believed that two of the Scottish Martyrs were at the bottom of the conspiracy on board the ''Surprize'' (1794), he was conscious that their treatment was being closely followed in the British press, and they were simply confined. Campbell wrote to the ship‘s owners:<br />
<br />
I have taken every means in my power to be cautious in the treatment of so many descriptions of people, and it is reasonable to suppose from the connections of Palmer and Skirving, the two apparent ringleaders of this Plot, that every exertion will be used in their favour, and to slander those whose lives they meant to take but whatever you may hear you may rest perfectly satisfied that I have taken such cautious Steps as to put it out of the power of the most malicious to injure me or any of the Civil Officers appointed by Government. . .<ref name="ftn75"> Copy of Capt. Campbell’s letter from Rio Janeiro to Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, n.d., TNA CO201/12/186.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Minerva'' (1799), Captain Salkeld responded to the initial rumours of a conspiracy by locking 14 of the supposed mutineers in a strong room. The stories persisted, but Salkeld was unable to find hard evidence of a conspiracy. The surgeon, John Washington Price, described their dilemma:<br />
<br />
Though we are sensible of his guilt, yet we could not procure sufficient evidence against him (those who could give it being afraid to come forward), we permit him to remain unpunished, but two of his confederates who have been in the habit of both receiving and forwarding messages from and to him have been put in double irons with a chain passing from each through the bars that are a midship in the prison. And there we leave them to commune together and to deliberate on the best method to effect their liberation.<ref name="ftn76"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, pp.120-121.</ref><br />
<br />
= 7. Accountable in Law =<br />
As previously observed, the masters of convict transports were legally accountable for the manner in which they responded to a mutiny or a conspiracy on board their ships. Prior to the formal establishment of a Court of Vice Admiralty in 1798, the Governors relied on the Judge Advocate and a bench of magistrates to conduct administrative inquiries into mutinies, conspiracies and allegations of maltreatment on board the convict transports.<br />
<br />
''Unreported Inquiries:'' There is no formal record of such an inquiry for the ''Albemarle'' (1791), where two of the mutineers had been executed, but the Judge Advocate wrote a detailed account of the mutiny in his journal, which almost certainly means that he conducted some kind of investigation.<ref name="ftn77"> Collins, Vol.1, p.151.</ref> The same applies to the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), where one of the many convicts out of irons had been executed.<ref name="ftn78"> Collins, Vol.1, p.261.</ref><br />
<br />
A number of papers have survived relating to events on the ''Surprize'' (1794). Shortly after their arrival in Sydney Cove, two of the Scottish Martyrs submitted a petition to the Governor, insisting that Captain Campbell had obtained confessions and testimonies through promises, bribes, threats and torture, and proposing that criminal charges be instituted against him. Campbell provided the Governor with a contemporaneous account of the events on board the ship, and the evidence that had been collected throughout the course of his inquiries, seeking the prosecution and punishment of two of the Martyrs and their followers.<br />
<br />
There is no record of these matters in the journal of the Judge Advocate, and the Acting Governor, Francis Grose, and Governor Hunter (when he arrived) seem to have dealt with the matter themselves, refusing to take any action against either side.<ref name="ftn79"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SANSW 5/1156; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.862-873, 879-882.</ref> One of the Martyrs later published a self-serving account, and historians have been inclined to accept their version of events, but we are no better equipped to ascertain the truth today than Governor Hunter was in 1794.<ref name="ftn80"> Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
''Formal Judicial Inquiries:'' The first detailed transcript of a judicial inquiry relates to the flogging of convicts on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795). Captain Hogan lodged a formal ‘protest’ concerning the mutiny shortly after arrival, but the formal investigation was initiated as the result of a written complaint by the corporal of the guard who had been confined for his supposed part in the conspiracy. He accused Hogan of ‘inhumane treatment’ and false imprisonment. The inquiry was chaired by the Judge Advocate, David Collins, assisted by the Acting Colonial Surgeon, William Balmain, in their capacity as Justices of the Peace.<br />
<br />
Balmain conducted some kind of preliminary investigation, collecting statements in the form of affidavits, and the hearing itself seems to have lasted for a single day. Collins and Balmain reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
We beg leave to lay before you the accompanying depositions and papers, from a careful examination of which we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn81"> ‘Proceedings on Board the Ship ''Marquis Cornwallis'': In the Matter of Capt. Hogan’s Treatment of the Convicts’, SANSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17 pp.387-398; TNA CO201/13/154-160a; ‘Conspiracy to Seize the ''Marquis Cornwallis''’, HRNSW Vol.3, pp.102-111.</ref><br />
<br />
Another inquiry was conducted the following year by three justices of the peace into the floggings on the ''Britannia'' (1796). Once again, there was some form of preliminary investigation to marshal the evidence, and testimony was heard over five days. The magistrates reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
After maturely considering the Evidence on both sides that has been brought before us on this Occasion, We are unanimously of Opinion that Captain Dennett’s Conduct in punishing the convicts in the manner he did for conspiring to take the Ship was imprudent and ill-judged, in as much as he did not take the sense of the Officers and Ship’s Company, individually, as to the steps necessary to be adopted for the preservation of the Ship and the lives of the People therein, for altho’ they might have been all present, and many of them assisting on that occasion, yet their not having been formally consulted renders it questionable whether the Captain’s proceedings would have met their unanimous approbation, and so far his Conduct in this instance may be regarded as bordering on too great a degree of severity. But we also clearly concur of Opinion that the Surgeon (Mr Byers) was beyond all the other Bystanders particularly culpable in not stedfastly protesting against the Cruelties which he charges Captain Dennett with and was therefore inexcusably negligent and indifferent in the performance of his duty, and consequently in an eminent degree, accessory to the inhumanities he complains of, such is our Opinion of the first charge. . .<br />
<br />
Since this was an administrative process, they also recommended reform of the transportation system:<br />
<br />
Before we conclude, we here beg leave to offer to his Excellency our Opinion that all Ships coming to this port with Transports should have on board an Officer of the Crown, who should be invested with proper power and authority, as well for the conducting of the Ship as the particular inspection and direction of the management of the Convicts on Board.<ref name="ftn82"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/52; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277.</ref><br />
<br />
''Court of Vice Admiralty:'' The only trial in the Court of Vice Admiralty in this period involved the prosecution of Captain Luckyn Betts of the ''Hercules'' (1801) for the unlawful deaths of 13 convicts in the court of the mutiny, and the deliberate execution of Jeremiah Prendergass, one of the ringleaders, shortly after the insurrection had been suppressed. Evidence was heard over two days, and as previously noted, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter:<br />
<br />
The Court after mature deliberation are satisfied that a mutiny actually existed on board the ship Hercules of which the prisoner Luckyn Betts was Master, do therefore acquit him of the first Count in the Indictment but find him guilty of Manslaughter on the Second And do Sentence him to pay a Fine of £500 to be appropriated to the Orphan Fund of this Colony, and that the said Luckyn Betts be imprisoned until the said Fine of £500 be paid.<ref name="ftn83"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254 at p.254; ‘The Trial of Captain Betts’, HRNSW Vol.4, pp.810-818 at p.818. </ref><br />
<br />
The prosecution was based on the evidence of the senior military officer on board, supported by his subordinates, and Betts’ account was corroborated by the ship’s officers. There seems little doubt that at the time, the military officers had supported Prendergass’s execution, which may account for the finding of manslaughter rather than murder.<br />
<br />
This was probably the most serious convict mutiny in the history of the Australian transportation system, and the court showed little interest in the deaths which occurred in the process of suppressing it, in spite of evidence indicating that some of these occurred in remote corners of the ship in the final stages of the insurrection.<br />
<br />
The court was most concerned to establish the circumstances surrounding Prenderass’ death, and focused on the time which had elapsed since the retaking of the quarterdeck and the failure of Betts to hold a ship’s council. The defence witnesses insisted that the safety of the ship had not yet been secured, and Betts sought to defend his actions by describing his emotional state at the time:<br />
<br />
A Blunderbuss had been Snapt at my Head the Consequence of which the Head of Providence had averted. I had just heard the solemn declaration of a dying man, who was reproaching Prendergass for being the Sole Author of the Mutiny. Prendergass had but a little time before been detected with an Adze in his Hand Attempting the Life of one of the Seamen. . . the deck was Strewed with dead Bodies, the Confusion was great, the Agitation of my Mind was more than Language can describe, and perhaps, unless You, Gentlemen, can for a Moment conceive Yourselves in my Situation, it will be impossible for you to have any thing like and adequate Idea of it.<ref name="ftn84"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
Again, this may help to explain why the finding was not murder. Governor King suspended the sentence, and deferred to the authority of the Home Secretary, however the ultimate outcome of the matter is not clear. The Transport Board did not consider that he had breached his contractual obligations.<ref name="ftn85"> Transport Board to King, 14 November 1803, ''Historical Records of Australia'', Series 1, Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1914 (hereafter HRA) Series 1, Vol.4, p.425.</ref> <br />
<br />
''Prosecution of Mutineers:'' There was little interest in pursuing the mutineers once they had arrived in New South Wales. Given the violence of some of the insurrections, and the seriousness with which mutiny was regarded in British courts, this comes as a surprise. None of the convicts who were involved in the mutinies on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) and the ''Hercules'' (1801), the most violent of the uprisings, were tried upon their arrival in New South Wales. Some of the supposed conspirators on the ''Barwell'' (1797) were tried and acquitted.<ref name="ftn86"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.467; TNA HCA1/64.</ref> Five of the seamen on the ''Hercules'' (1801) were charged ‘with force and arms upon the High Seas of piratically feloniously and wickedly combining to stir up bring about and make revolt and mutiny and did contribute to seize the ship and murder the officers and passengers’, but the evidence was not strong and the prosecutions were abandoned after the first of the men were acquitted.<ref name="ftn87"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court. . .’, 14 July 1802, TNA CO201/21/255-257.</ref><br />
<br />
British courts were reluctant to revisit the decisions made by ships’ captains a thousand miles away, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. They were often faced with widely differing accounts of what happened by parties who had developed deep suspicion, and in some cases, loathing, for one another in the course of the voyage. Criticism tended to focus on procedural matters – the time elapsed since the security of the ship was restored, and whether the captain had consulted with his officers.<br />
<br />
But unlike wagons trains on the Overland Trail, convict transports were governed by law, and it is clear that ships’ captains moderated their behaviour out of a concern at possible criminal prosecution and, in the case of well-connected gentlemen convicts, potential scrutiny by the press.<br />
<br />
= 8. Too Great a Degree of Severity? =<br />
== 8.1 Kindness and Humanity ==<br />
In some cases, however, we encounter captains who sailed from England with the expressed hope of not needing to punish any of the convicts in the course of the voyage. This seems to have been the case on the'' Minerva (1799) ''where, after they had received allegations of yet another conspiracy, Surgeon Price wrote:<br />
<br />
We have had very great hopes, and indeed wished very much, that in no instance during the voyage. . . we should have occasion to punish any of these too unfortunate men, but their hopes were frustrated, and our wishes proved abortive.<ref name="ftn88"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, p.88.</ref><br />
<br />
The master of the'' Friendship (1799)'', Hugh Reid, took his wife with him on the voyage, and prior to sailing from Ireland, she noted in her journal that:<br />
<br />
Captain Reid thought that it would be possible to take the prisoners to the place of their destination without having an occasion intervene for inflicting on them punishment; or any severity beyond that of attending to their safe custody. . .<ref name="ftn89"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', September 1819, pp.238-239.</ref><br />
<br />
Reid had been Chief Mate on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', and when he and his wife dined with his former master, Michael Hogan, at the Cape, he reported that the prisoners had behaved very well, and that ‘they had put it out of his power or that of his officers to lay a finger on them: and that he was in hopes of landing them at the place of their destination without introducing the machinery of punishment’. Hogan – who was clearly more comfortable with using the lash if it was required – was surprised.<ref name="ftn90"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', November 1819, p.455.</ref><br />
<br />
On their return to England, Mrs Reid wrote that her husband received letters from relatives of the convicts they had carried out:<br />
<br />
It was particularly gratifying to my husband to receive letters from the friends of those poor men whom embarked from Ireland, expressive of their sincere thanks for the great kindness and humanity shewn to them on the passage, and observing that they had mentioned that the only hardship they experienced was the necessary confinement, which the laws of their country and the safety of the ship required.<ref name="ftn91"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal, ''December 1820, p.577.</ref><br />
<br />
What is significant is not so much that the convicts’ relatives sent these letters, but that Hugh and Mary Ann Reid were grateful to have received them. This was how Captain Reid wanted to be known.<br />
<br />
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the transportation system, but in general, convicts on a voyage to the Antipodes were treated well. When the women of the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) asked the ship’s surgeon if they could substitute tea and sugar for some of their daily serving of salted meat, he made a recommendation to the contractor, who passed it on to the Navy Board with his warm support. From that time forward, all female convicts on Botany Bay ships were issued with a ration of tea and sugar throughout the voyage. And when it was realised that a number of the women were pregnant, the government organised a supply of linen, which Richards arranged to have made up. On their lying-in, convict women were supplied not only with clouts and pilchers for their newborn children, but bedgowns and nightcaps for themselves. This is a very different account of the transportation system than the lurid tales that amateur and family historians like to tell.<br />
<br />
Of course, the living conditions in a convict prison could be deeply unpleasant, particularly when prisoners were sent on board with typhus and/or the ship encountered high seas and stormy weather, but those were circumstances beyond the control of the ships’ officers.<br />
<br />
== 8.2 An Intrinsically Pathological Situation ==<br />
There is one ship, however, where the level of violence used in response to the conspiracy indicates that a deeply pathological situation had developed. The atmosphere on board the ''Britannia'' (1796) was tense from the outset – shortly before she sailed from Cork, there had been an attempted mutiny on one of the convict ships, although the details are few, and it is unclear which vessel was involved.<ref name="ftn92"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796; ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 16 September 1796, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
A significant number of the men had been associated with a revolutionary movement known as the Defenders, which relied on the administration of oaths to maintain secrecy. Some of these men had participated in a violent battle with the Irish Militia in May of the previous year, and thus were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence. Others had been involved in lynch mobs and conspired to assassinate public officials.<ref name="ftn93"> Barbara Hall, ''Death or Liberty: The Convicts of the Britannia, Ireland to Botany Bay, 1797'' (hereafter Hall), Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Nor were the ship’s officers reassured by the soldiers who had been sent on board. Several of them had come directly from the Savoy prison, four had run from the ship at Cork, they were insolent and one had threatened the cook with a knife. They had proved unreliable as sentries, one falling asleep on watch, and another getting drunk with the seamen.<ref name="ftn94"> Hall, pp.237, 239; Journal of the ''Britannia'', IOR L/MAR/B/285XX, 8 & 14 November, 23 December 1796, 2 January 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
When Captain Dennett inquired of the resident agent at Cork whether the government had any instructions as to how to deal with such an unruly shipload of prisoners, he was told that there were none. He was to act as circumstances might require. Dennett later explained:<br />
<br />
Left then alone in a situation entirely new, I was determined if the conduct of those committed to my charge would but permit to make them as comfortable as it was possible, but at the same time if they behaved ill to have them punished in such a manner as to deter others from being guilty of similar offences. I have always been of opinion that severity in some instances is lenity in general.<ref name="ftn95"> ‘Captain Dennott’s Address to the Court’, 21 June 1797, HRNSW Vol.3, p.275</ref><br />
<br />
Upon their arrival at Rio de Janeiro, the convicts were transferred to an island in the harbour for the sake of their health. While the details are scant, it is evident that several of the convicts attempted an escape, attacking the guard and trying to steal their muskets.<ref name="ftn96"> TNA CO201/14/42a, 43, 47a & HRNSW Vol.3, p.257, 258, 266; Journal of the ''Britannia'', 17, 21 & 22 February 1797, and evidence attributed to Kit Hughes on 25 March 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
Several days after sailing from port, one of the men who had been liberated because of good behaviour, came aft and advised the captain that the convicts in the fore prison had been administering oaths and were plotting to take the ship. Having had the story confirmed by a second prisoner, Dennett set about flogging the conspirators to make them confess – six men were given 300 lashes each in the course of the afternoon, and after some resistance, they implicated others. At the end of the day, the fore prison was thoroughly searched and a large number of cutting implements were uncovered – knives, saws, scissors, spike nails, staples and iron hoops. There was no question that an attack was being planned.<br />
<br />
Dennett now set about punishing men for their involvement in this conspiracy and in the attempted escapes at Rio de Janeiro. The second day began with the flogging of two men who had been given 300 lashes the day before. They were given another 500 each. When the cat ceased to open their skin, Dennett had the boatswain make up another. By the time that day was over, another 5,700 lashes had been administered to 20 men, and another 1,575 were given the following day. In all, more than 8,000 lashes administered to 31 men over the course of two and a half days.<br />
<br />
One can imagine what it must have been like in the prison of the ''Britannia'', listening to the sounds emanating from the deck above. On the third day of flogging, one of the convict women threw herself overboard. She was already suffering from mental illness, but her suicide was a reaction to the events of the previous days. One of the soldiers followed her the next day, ‘out of a fit of insanity’. Both of the men who had been given 800 lashes died in the weeks that followed, and three more besides. When the ''Britannia'' arrived in Sydney Cove two months later, several of the prisoners had to be sent to hospital, including one man who had been given 700 lashes.<ref name="ftn97"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/31ff; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board, SANSW 5/1156, or Copy at COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
As previously noted, a judicial inquiry was established into the events on board the ''Britannia'', which concluded that the captain’s behaviour was ‘bordering on too great a degree of severity’. It also found that the surgeon superintendent, the government’s agent on board the ship, was ‘particularly culpable in not steadfastly protesting against the Cruelties’ practised by Captain Dennett.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Stanford Experiment (1973), we understand much better what happened on the ''Britannia''. In reflecting on their experiment at the time, Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney wrote that the anti-social behaviour of the students who had acted as guards ‘were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals’.<ref name="ftn98"> C. Haney, W. Banks and P. Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'', (1973) 1, pp.69-97, at p.90.</ref> The sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib in 2003 reminds that these lessons have still not been learned.<br />
<br />
Zimbardo and Haney have argued that to a significant extent, this behaviour is situational: ‘the ‘psychologic’ of the environment was more powerful than the benign intentions or predispositions of the participants.’ No doubt this explains some of what happened on the ''Britannia'' in 1797.<br />
<br />
But others have pointed to role that dehumanisation plays in the abuse prisoners and prisoners of war, the systematic devaluation of human attributes in outgroups.<ref name="ftn99"> See, for example, G. Tendayi Viki, Daniel Osgood and Sabine Phillips, ‘Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war’, ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', (2013) 49, pp.325-328.</ref> There may also have been some of this in the reaction to the conspiracy on the ''Britannia'' in the middle of the South Atlantic on the 23<sup>rd</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> and 25<sup>th</sup> of March 1797. Among the ships’ officers and the public authorities in New South Wales, there was not a great deal of respect for the Irish and there was significant fear of political rebels such as the Defenders. In writing of the conspiracy on the ''Boddington'' (1793), the Judge Advocate, David Collins referred to ‘the wild lawless Irish’, and in reflecting on the events on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), he wrote:<br />
<br />
It appeared that the men were for the most part of the description of people termed Defenders, desperate, and ripe for any scheme from which danger and destruction were likely to ensue. The women were of the same complexion; and their ingenuity and cruelty were displayed in the part they were to take in the purposed insurrection, which was the preparing of pulverised glass to mix with the flour of which the seamen were to make their puddings. What an importation!<ref name="ftn100"> Collins, Vol.1, pp.262, 380-381.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor Hunter wrote to the Home Secretary of ‘such horrid characters as the people called Irish Defenders, who. . . I wish had been either sent to the coast of Africa or some place as fit for them’.<ref name="ftn101"> Hunter to Portland, 12 November 1796, TNA CO201/13//218a.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor King referred to the ‘mutinous Irish’ on the ''Hercules''.<ref name="ftn102"> King to Hobart, 9 May 1803, HRA Series 1, Vol.4, p.85.</ref> And a newspaper report in Sydney concerning one of the men who arrived on that ship claimed that ‘he was well known in Ireland during the rebellion for his abominable depravities. . .’<ref name="ftn103"> ''Sydney Gazette'', 19 January 1806, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
What is striking, however, about the responses to the mutinies and conspiracies on board convict ships in the early years of the transportation system, is how rare such an abusive response was.<br />
<br />
= 9. Conclusion =<br />
No doubt there were false alarms, but one in four convict transports carrying men in the period 1787 to 1801 experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, and if we include the mutinies on the hulks and the smaller vessels which carried convicts to the port of embarkation, then the ships’ officers did need to exercise great care in the management of the male convicts, particularly where Irish political prisoners were concerned. As the tragic fate of the captain and the chief mate on the ''Lady Shore'' demonstrated, there was a high cost to pay when the authorities under-estimated the prospects of an uprising.<br />
<br />
Hunter was right to say that fears of insurrection sometimes excused ‘the enforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline’, but these occasions were rare. In general, the punishment of convicts in the passage to New South Wales was moderate, even when violent mutinies were concerned, and in several cases, we encounter masters who dreamed of carrying the prisoners to their destination without the need to punish a single one.<br />
<br />
While the courts were reluctant to second-guess events which took place some thousands of miles away at sea, there is evidence that the prospect of subsequent scrutiny served to moderate the response to an insurrection. The situation of a convict on board a transport bound for the Antipodes was very different from that of a slave bound for the Americas, or an emigrant on the Overland Trail.<br />
<br />
When mutinies did occur, the ships’ officers were quite willing to execute one of the ringleaders to ensure the safety of the ship, or to flog a number of the conspirators. But with only two exceptions, they paused to seek counsel from the ships’ officers, military officers, and free passengers, and there is only one occasion on which the conspiracy became ‘a convenient cloak for cruelty’.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mutinies]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies_on_Convict_Transports&diff=576Mutinies on Convict Transports2016-07-06T10:03:26Z<p>Admin: Created page with "<center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center> <center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center> <center>Paper delivere..."</p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''‘A Convenient Cloak for Cruelty? -'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>'''Mutinies and Conspiracies on Early Australian Convict Transports’'''</center><br />
<br />
<center>Paper delivered to the 7<sup>th</sup> International Congress of Maritime History,</center><br />
<br />
<center>Perth, Western Australia on 27 June 2016</center><br />
<br />
<center>by Gary L. Sturgess </center><br />
<br />
= Abstract =<br />
Of the 47 ships that carried convicts to New South Wales between 1787 and 1801, one in four experienced a mutiny, actual or planned, by the convicts and/or the soldiers. For the most part, this was an Irish problem, with the conspiracies involving hardened political rebels with antipathy to the British Crown.<br />
<br />
This paper examines the course of these mutinies and conspiracies, the violence employed in suppressing them, the conditions that contributed to the fear of mutiny and the use of excess violence, and subsequent legal oversight.<br />
<br />
= 1. False Alarms? =<br />
In a paper written on the ship as he returned home from New South Wales in 1801, recently-retired Governor John Hunter observed that rumours of planned mutinies on convict ships were sometimes used to justify abusive behaviour:<br />
<br />
. . . the creating false alarms of mutiny or insurrection, has some times excused the inforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline, <nowiki>and this, rather than real disease, caused in this ship [the </nowiki>''Hillsborough''] so great a proportion. . . to die. . . The alarm of mutiny is a very convenient cloak for cruelty; and if the prisoners were better treated, there would be less occasion to dread it; but it is an excuse for every thing wicked that a bad man can devise.<ref name="ftn1"> John Hunter, ''Remarks on the Causes of the Colonial Expense of the Establishment of New South Wales, &c'', London, 1802, p.48.</ref><br />
<br />
Two decades later, Commissioner John Bigge, who had been sent out to investigate the transportation system on behalf of the British government, wrote that ‘the fear of combinations amongst the convicts to take the ship, is proved by experience of later years to be groundless. . .’<ref name="ftn2"> John Bigge, ‘Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed by the House of Commons, 19 June 1822, ''House of Commons Parliamentary Papers'', p.3.</ref><br />
<br />
Hunter had never spent time on a convict transport: he had originally sailed out with the First Fleet, but he had done so on the quarter deck of ''HMS Sirius'', one of two naval vessels accompanying the expedition, and the risk of a mutiny on that voyage was minimised by the large number of marines being sent out to the new settlement. Bigge had sailed to New South Wales on the ''John Barry'', a copybook of a convict voyage, with an experienced surgeon superintendent and three teachers, very little sickness, no deaths, and no mutiny or rumour thereof. He had no knowledge of the conditions which prevailed in the early years of transportation.<br />
<br />
In fact, over the first decade and a half of the Australian transportation system, from 1787 until 1801, there were 11 mutinies and conspiracies – more than one in four of the ships that carried male convicts and/or soldiers to New South Wales in that period. Of these, there were five actual mutinies (one of them successful) and six conspiracies that were sufficiently advanced for clear evidence to exist of the mutineers’ intentions (such as large numbers of cut irons or the accumulation of implements that could be used for that purpose).<br />
<br />
There were a further eight ships where rumours of a planned conspiracy provoked some kind of intervention on the part of the ships’ officers, and where the seriousness of the situation is open to debate. What cannot be denied, however, is that many of the mariners and free passengers who sailed on these voyages were terrified of an uprising by the convicts and/or the soldiers (many of the latter having been recently been released from gaol themselves).<br />
<br />
Knowing that James Willcocks, the master of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), would shortly be killed by mutinous soldiers on the outward voyage, it is difficult not to be moved by his increasingly desperate pleas for intervention by the authorities before his ship sailed from Portsmouth. Willcocks was no coward: when his ship had been taken by a French privateer on her previous voyage, he had insisted on remaining on board and had convinced his captors that they should release her.<ref name="ftn3"> Journal of the ''Lady Shore'', IOR L/MAR/B/429B, 19-22 July 1796.</ref><br />
<br />
But as he prepared to sail for New South Wales in April 1797 with a shipload of female convicts and a detachment of British, French and Irish recruits being sent out to the settlement, Willcocks was terrified at the incendiary behaviour of some of the soldiers, and asked for their firearms to be taken away. When their commanding officer, Colonel Francis Grose, came on board to investigate, his concerns were dismissed and Willcocks was accused of being violent and overbearing. The unfortunate man resigned himself to his situation and set about preparing his will.<ref name="ftn4"> J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, pp.188-189; King to the Transport Board, 23 May 1797, TNA ADM108/46/324; Willcocks to King, 27 May 1797, TNA HO42/40/134-136a. His will is at TNA Prob 11/1307.</ref><br />
<br />
Passengers on the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) were mortified when they discovered that 140 of the convicts were being admitted on deck for fresh air at one time. Some of the prisoners had boasted that they would take the ship, and the passengers organised their own watch to supplement the one provided by the guard. James Wilshire, who was going out to the settlement to take up a position in the commissariat, wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Before we left Spithead they said if they should take the ship from us, they would make every one walk the plank. The Captain is a very religious and I believe a very good man, but I am afraid he shows too much lenity to such vile depraved characters, as I am afraid that all the comforts and attention for their good which possibly can be shown will, [at] the first opportunity, be inhumanly repaid by putting us under the greatest tortures of death which possibly be described. . .</nowiki><ref name="ftn5"> James Wilshire, ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 22 June 1800.</ref><br />
<br />
There was no mutiny on the ''Royal Admiral'', and we will never know whether the convicts were serious in their boasts about taking the ship. What cannot be denied is that James Wilshire and his fellow passengers were in fear of their lives.<br />
<br />
Questions of security and freedom mattered – too much liberty and some of the prisoners would mutiny or escape; too little and more of them would die from sickness and disease. If the ships’ officers routinely over-estimated the prospect of an uprising and confined the prisoners too much, they were responsible, in part, for the high mortality rates on the early convict voyages. If the majority of conspiracies were fictions, dreamed up by convict informants to curry favour with their gaolers (and if junior military officers, naval lieutenants and/or naval surgeons would have been less affected by such fantasies), then the contractual system used for transporting convicts prior to 1815 was inherently flawed. If the legal and administrative framework governing these contracts was incapable of preventing excessively violent and abusive responses to mutinies and conspiracies, then government is to be condemned for relying on a system that was incapable of protecting the prisoners in the passage to Botany Bay.<br />
<br />
This paper explores the security arrangements on board the early convict transports (1787-1801), each of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies and alleged conspiracies that occurred during that period, and the manner in which the ships’ officers responded.<ref name="ftn6"> The mutinies include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), the ''Ann'' (1800) and the ''Hercules'' (1801).<br />
<br />
The conspiracies were on the ''Boddington'' and the ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), the ''Britannia'' (1796), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) and the ''Minerva'' (1798).<br />
<br />
The alleged conspiracies were on the ''Scarborough'' (1787 & 1790), the ''Britannia'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800), and the ''Atlas'' (1801). </ref><br />
<br />
= 2. Managing through Contract =<br />
The overwhelming majority of convicts shipped to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors, and in the first three decades – from 1787 until 1815 – the ships’ officers were responsible for their day-to-day management.<br />
<br />
Contrary to the claims of some historians, the First Fleet was managed under same the arrangements, with the difference that the commodore of the fleet (and Governor-elect of the new settlement), Captain Arthur Phillip, had over-riding authority, and chose to intervene in the management of the prisoners throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn7"> On the misunderstanding, see Robert Hughes, ''The Fatal Shore'', London: Collins Harvill, 1987, pp.144-5, based on Charles Bateson, ''The Convict Ships, 1787-1868'', 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., 1985, pp.10-11, 20. Statements about how the contractual system actually worked are based on a detailed analysis of the documentary record for the First Fleet (1787) and the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789), available from the author.</ref><br />
<br />
In the early years, naval lieutenants usually accompanied some of the ships, as ‘agents for transports’: their experience had traditionally been limited to regulating the loading and navigation of naval transports, and while they were charged with the additional responsibility for monitoring the management of the prisoners, they were not qualified for this role.<ref name="ftn8"> No particular instructions were given to the naval agent on the First Fleet, but the agent who accompanied the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) had responsibility for ‘watching over the proceedings of the contractor and his agents’ and ensuring that ‘proper attention’ was paid to the convicts. (Sydney to the Treasury, 24 April 1789, TNA HO36/6/253-256 & TNA T1/667/398-399, 404; Steele to Stephens, 3 June 1789, TNA T27/40/257)<br />
<br />
The agent on the Second Fleet (1790) was to see that the women were kept separate from the men, and to ensure that they were not abused or ill-treated. He was to visit the ships whenever the weather permitted and to ensure that the prisons were washed and aired, and that the convicts were kept clean and had their clothes changed and washed. He was also to see that justice was done to the prisoners, but his authority extended only to keeping a journal and reporting on the masters’ behaviour upon arrival. (Rose to the Navy Board, 15 August 1789, TNA T1/672/209 & TNA T27/40/344; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)<br />
<br />
On the Third Fleet (1791), the agents were simply to ensure that the charter party was complied with, and to keep a journal. (Navy Board to Lieut. Samuel Blow, 25 January 1791, Alexander Hood, ‘Papers relating to Captain Alexander Hood's command of the ''Hebe'', Channel and Irish Sea: relating to the Convict Transport ''Queen''’, 18 November 1790 to 21 April 1791, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM) MKH/9, MS68/099)<br />
<br />
The instructions for the ''Kitty'' (1793) were similar to those of the Second Fleet. (Warrant issued to Lieut. Daniel Woodriff, 4 January 1793, TNA ADM106/2640)<br />
<br />
No more naval agents were appointed until the ''Earl Cornwallis'' (1800), with authority superintend the care, management and victualling of the convicts. (Transport Board to Hunter, 7 August 1800, TNA ADM108/67/270) This was the last occasion on which they were used.</ref><br />
<br />
Following the high mortality on the Second Fleet, naval surgeons were appointed as ‘surgeon superintendents’ on several of the ships, again responsible for oversight rather than direct management. They enjoyed mixed success, and with the outbreak of war in 1793, naval surgeons could no longer be spared for such duties.<ref name="ftn9"> Surgeon superintendents were appointed to the ''Royal Admiral'' and ''Bellona'' (1792), ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'' (1793), ''Surprize'' (1794), ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), ''Ganges'' and ''Britannia'' (1796), ''Lady Shore'' (1797) and ''Minerva'' (1799), and then no more until the ''Northampton'' (1814). The ''Boddington'', the ''Sugar Cane'', the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', the ''Britannia'' and the ''Minerva'' all carried Irish convicts, and the Irish government persisted with surgeon superintendents long after the British government had ceased to use them. The status of the surgeon on the ''Ganges'' is unclear: he was going out to take up a position in the colony, and was assigned responsibilities for the convicts as well. The master of the ''Lady Shore'' did not intend to carry his own surgeon, presumably because the women would have the freedom of the deck, and he felt he should not be responsible for the health of the soldiers. The government appointed a surgeon instead.<br />
<br />
No details have survived of the instructions for the surgeon superintendents on the ''Royal Admiral'' and the ''Bellona''. On the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', they were to assist the ships’ surgeons ‘in the necessary attendance on the sick’, and enforce ‘a compliance with the several stipulations made with the contractor. . . for the maintenance & supply of the convicts & guard during their continuance on board’. The masters were contractually bound to obey all orders of the surgeon superintendents for the convicts’ welfare. (Late Draft of the Contract for the ''Boddington'' and ''Sugar Cane'', TNA CO201/7/346-9; ‘<nowiki>Draft [Nepean] to W. Richard Kent’, 12 December 1792, TNA CO201/7/420-422</nowiki>)<br />
<br />
We have no details of the instructions given to the subsequent surgeon superintendents, but it is clear from the inquiry into the floggings on the ''Britannia'', that the surgeon of that ship had not been given clear authority over the master. (F.M. Bladen (ed.), ''Historical Records of New South Wales'', 7 Volumes, Sydney: Government Printer, 1893-1901 (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 3, pp.235, 276-7, 488)</ref> It was not until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 that naval surgeons could once again be used, although it would take several years for them to assume full responsibility for the day-to-day management of the prisoners, and some chose to defer to strong-willed captains.<br />
<br />
Thus, from 1787 until a little after 1815, convicts were managed through a chain of authority cascading down from the Home Office to the Navy Board (and after 1794, the Transport Board), from them to the convict contractors and/or the ship owners, and from owners to masters. These early ships were, in essence, floating prisons, managed under contract, with the contractors’ agents responsible for the health and well-being of the convicts as well as the navigation and management of the vessel.<br />
<br />
= 3. Security on Convict Ships =<br />
Prisoners on board convict ships were not confined as a form of punishment, but in order to prevent mutinies and escapes. This was consistent with 18<sup>th</sup> century notions of imprisonment, where the inmates enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the gaol throughout the day. In Britain, prison inmates were generally not provided with meals by their gaolers, receiving instead a county allowance and purchasing their own provisions. Men were often allowed to associate with the women throughout the day, which helps to explain why so many female convicts came on board the convict ships with a young child or in a state of pregnancy.<ref name="ftn10"> Wayne Joseph Sheehan, ‘The London Prison System, 1666-1795’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975, Chapter 4; Margaret DeLacy, ''Prison Reform in Lancashire, 1700-1850'', Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, Chapter 1.</ref><br />
<br />
Convict women were freed from their irons as soon as they were brought on board, and it was only the refractory who were confined throughout the course of the voyage. In many cases (until 1819 at least), they were permitted to form sexual relationships with the ships’ officers and (less often) the crew – there was, as yet, no appreciation that, as long as they occupied the subordinate status of prisoners, the women might not be able to make a truly independent decision in such matters.<br />
<br />
Boys were rarely ironed, sick convicts were usually freed from their shackles, and it was common for 20 or 30 of the more trustworthy men to be given the freedom of the deck to assist in sailing the ship and providing cleaning, cooking and nursing services for their fellow prisoners.<br />
<br />
In these early years, the male convicts were generally kept in single irons – shackles around each ankle connected by a chain – and when the weather permitted, they were allowed on deck for several hours a day for exercise, while the prison was cleaned and fumigated. On smaller ships, the convicts’ quarters were located on the lower deck, and on vessels with three decks, they were assigned to the lowest, known as the orlop deck. In wet weather and high seas, and in extreme cold, there was no alternative but to leave the convicts locked down in their quarters.<br />
<br />
Unruly convicts might be loaded with a second set of irons, referred to as ‘double irons’, and in some cases with ‘heavy irons’. If they were particularly troublesome, they might be confined in shackles joined with a bar iron (as opposed to a chain), a neck brace, handcuffs and/or thumbscrews (the latter designed to disable and not a form of torture as some have assumed), or ‘stapled’ to the deck. In the early years of the Australian transportation system, it was only the First Fleet – for the reasons already mentioned – where the male convicts were freed from their irons throughout the entire voyage.<br />
<br />
Security was usually provided by a small detachment of soldiers. When plans for the Australian transportation system were first being developed, Lord Sydney and his under-secretary, Evan Nepean, imagined that the contractors might provide the necessary guards, but this idea was quickly abandoned when it was realised how many marines would accompany the First Fleet.<ref name="ftn11"> ‘Draught to the Lords of the Treasury’, 18 August 1786, TNA CO201/2/3-10; Steele to Commissioners of the Navy, 26 August 1786, Public Record Office, TNA T27/38/336-337; Navy Board Minutes, 18 October 1786, TNA ADM106/2622.</ref><br />
<br />
There were no soldiers on the next voyage, since the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) carried only female convicts, and when plans were being made for the Second Fleet, the Home Office expected (yet again) that the guards would be provided by the contractors. This proposal was abandoned when shipbrokers made it clear that they would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance (because of a concern among underwriters about the prospect of mutiny).<ref name="ftn12"> Wellbank Sharp & Brown to Navy Board, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/232; Navy Board to Thomas Steele, 24 August 1789, TNA T1/671/231; Treasury to Navy Board, 29 October 1789, TNA T29/61/73.</ref> Plans to raise a new regiment for service in New South Wales were by then well advanced, and these were expedited so that a small detachment (of 15-20 men) could sail on each of the three convict transports that made up the Second Fleet.<br />
<br />
With the outbreak of war, the government had better things to do with its soldiers than to send them to the far side of the globe, and it became commonplace for half a dozen deserters to be taken out of the Savoy Prison and sent on board the convict transports, where they were handed a uniform and musket.<ref name="ftn13"> Lewis to The Honorable Colonel Fox, Chatham Barracks, 31 December 1792, TNA WO4/845/73.</ref><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, this practice caused deep concern among the masters of the convict transports. These men were often unruly, and the ships’ officers feared that they would conspire with the convicts to take the ship. Soldiers were significant players in two of the five mutinies, at least two and possibly four of the six conspiracies, and at least one of the alleged conspiracies in the ships in the period with which this paper is concerned.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Surprize'' (1794), the deserters were initially placed down among the convicts, and subsequently released and appointed as sentries on the main hatch which led into the prison.<ref name="ftn14"> Lewis to Sir Hew Dalrymple, Chatham Barracks, 13 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/92-3; Lewis to John King, 15 January 1794, TNA WO4/845/93; Campbell to the Navy Board, 17 February 1794, TNA T1/728/198-199 & HO35/14; Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797, pp.16-17.</ref> The 74 soldiers on the ''Lady Shore'' were not there to provide security since the ship was carrying female convicts and only two men. But they did include a number of French prisoners of war (who had claimed that they were royalists), some Irish recruits (always regarded as suspect) and several deserters brought directly from the Savoy.<ref name="ftn15"> ‘Return of a Detachment of the New South Wales Corps, embarked at Gravesend on board the Lady Shore, under the Command of Ensign Minchin, 27<sup>th</sup> March 1797’, based on remarks made by Corporal John Spice, TNA WO40/16/60; Statement of Simon Murchison, 21 January 1798, TNA ADM108/19/144 & HO42/44/90a; </ref><br />
<br />
Following the mutiny on that ship, the contractors and ship owners were reluctant to have a military detachment on board, and for several years some of the masters were paid to provide their own security. However, this practice had ceased by 1803, and thereafter soldiers were always employed.<ref name="ftn16"> There were no soldiers on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), the ''Friendship'' (1799), the ''Ann'' (1800) or the ''Perseus'' and ''Coromandel'' (1802). The use of contracted guards seems to have ended with the ''Rolla'' (1802) – Minutes of the Transport Board, 14 December 1801, TNA ADM108/70/334.</ref><br />
<br />
Contrary to what has often been assumed, the soldiers were not responsible for managing the convicts day-to-day, and they had no say over when the convicts were allowed on deck, what chains they wore, and whether they would be punished. Until sometime after 1815, it was the ships’ officers, and particularly the master and the surgeon, who were responsible for these matters.<br />
<br />
The First Fleet was somewhat different. Phillip gave a great deal of authority to the naval surgeons and assistant surgeons who were accompanying him out to live in the settlement, assigning one to each of the transports carrying the largest numbers of male convicts. He also instructed the marine officers to work in collaboration with the ships’ masters in making decisions about the convicts’ security, and we can find a number of examples of this happening throughout the voyage.<ref name="ftn17"> John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales'', Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.70-71; Stephens to Smith, 24 February 1787, TNA ADM2/1178/151; Stephens to Collins, 2 March 1787, National Marines Museum, Portsmouth (hereafter NMaM) Arch11/52/2, p.166.</ref><br />
<br />
When the NSW Corps joined the Second Fleet, the senior officers attempted to take control of convict security, imitating what they (wrongly) believed to have been the situation on the First Fleet. This resulted in considerable tension between the ships’ officers and the officers of the NSW Corps, which was quickly resolved in favour of the former. The principal reason for this was that the contractors and ships’ captains had provided a financial bond of £40 for each convict, guaranteeing that they would be delivered to their specified destination, but the Navy Board also recognised that at the end of the day, the responsibility for the security of the ship must lie with the master.<ref name="ftn18"> Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268; Shapcote to Navy Board, Minute of 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/266; Shapcote to Navy Board, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/267; Navy Board Minutes 23 November 1789, NA ADM106/2631; Note on reverse of Hill to Barnard, 21 November 1789, TNA T1/674/259a; Navy Board to Shapcote, 23 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/267; Navy Board to Treasury, 23 November 1789, TNA T1/674/264; Treasury Minutes, 25 November 1789, TNA T29/61/207. There appears to be no documentary record of the instructions from the War Office to Grose and Hill; John Harris, ‘Paper Delivered by the Surgeon’s Mate of the New South Wales Corps contain<sup>g</sup> the proceed<sup>gs</sup> of Mr Gilbert’, 4 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/404-407.<br />
<br />
Gareth Cole, ‘Who Has Command? The Royal Artillerymen aboard Royal Navy Warships in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars’, and Britt Zerbe, ‘The Marine Officer is a Raw Lad, and therefore Troublesome: Royal Naval Officers and the Officers of the Marines, 1755-1797’, in Helen Doe and Richard Harding (eds.), ''Naval Leadership and Management, 1660-1950'', Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2012, pp.61-76, 77-92</ref><br />
<br />
= 4. Legal Authority on Convict Ships =<br />
The captain’s authority over the convicts arose from the Common Law governing relations between masters and servants. This was also the foundation of the master’s authority over his crew, whom he was legally entitled to chastise physically for the security and wellbeing of the ship.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ship’s company, this arose out of the contract of employment created when the articles of agreement were signed by the crew shortly after coming on board. In the case of the convicts, the master-servant relationship arose from a legal instrument known as the contract of effectual transportation, signed by city and county gaolers and the convict contractors and ships’ masters when the convicts were brought on board. This transferred legal property in the convicts’ service to the master for the duration of the voyage, so that, in law, they were his servants until their arrival in New South Wales.<br />
<br />
Under the law of master and servant, chastisement had to be proportionate. It must be inflicted for sufficient cause; it could not be visited with undue severity. It could be inflicted for past offences, or to promote good discipline on board the ship. It was for this reason that punishment for theft and insolence on most convict transports was usually limited to confinement and a flogging of a dozen or two dozen lashes.<ref name="ftn19"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.125-127, 394-397; Francis Ludlow Holt, ''A System of the Shipping and Navigation Laws of Great Britain'', London: Joseph Butterworth and Son, 1824 (hereafter Holt), p.260; Richard Henry Dana, ''The Seamen’s Friend'', 4<sup>th</sup> edition, Boston: Thomas Groom and Company, 1845, pp.192-193.</ref><br />
<br />
Mutinies were quite a different matter. The ships’ officers were entitled to use reasonable force to defend themselves and ensure the safety of the ship, and if this resulted in the death of a mutineer, they were protected by the privilege of self-defence. Where possible, offenders should be secured so they could be brought before an appropriate tribunal, but the justification of self-defence extended to the execution and the severe flogging of mutineers, if a conference of the ships’ officers concluded that this was necessary for the safety of the ship.<ref name="ftn20"> Abbott, op. cit., pp.127-128; Holt, op. cit., p.261; Richard Henry Dana, op. cit., pp.193-4; Richard Henry Dana, ‘Two Years Before the Mast’, in Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ''Two Years Before the Mast & Other Voyages'', New York: The Library of America, 2005, p.348.</ref><br />
<br />
Comparisons have sometimes been made between the convict trade and the slave trade, but convict transportation was closely regulated by law. No prisoner could be moved from a county gaol to a convict transport or from ship to shore, without appropriate paperwork. When, in November 1786, a young prisoner from Norwich named Susannah Holmes was brought onto the ''Dunkirk'', a convict hulk at Plymouth where she was to be held awaiting the arrival of the First Fleet transports, the captain refused to allow her ten-month old son on board. This was not because of heartless indifference, but because there were no official papers authorising him to receive the child into his establishment. It was only when the Norwich gaoler obtained a written instruction from the Home Secretary that mother and child could be reunited.<ref name="ftn21"> ''Morning Post & Daily Advertiser'', 4 December 1786.</ref><br />
<br />
In English law, a convict was a ‘freeman’ not a slave, and when the matter was eventually dealt with in an insurance case, the courts utterly rejected the suggestion that the prisoners could classified as part of the ships’ cargo.<ref name="ftn22"> The reference to a convict being a ‘freeman’ is from the judgement of Mr Justice Park in an insurance case ''Brown v Stapylton'', Court of Common Pleas, Easter Term 1827, 4 Bingham 119. Park acknowledged that a claim could be made on the life of a slave thrown overboard, a reference to the ''Zong'', but was firm in relation to convicts, he wrote ‘the authorities are clear, that there can be no estimation of the life of a freeman’.</ref> By contrast, in the Africa trade, the slaves regarded in law as a form of property who could be bought and sold, and whose lives could be insured in case of their deaths in the course of a mutiny.<br />
<br />
Following his decision in the infamous case of the ''Zong'', where the ship owners claimed the insurance on slaves deliberately thrown overboard because of an alleged fear that the ship would be lost due to a lack of water and provisions, Lord Mansfield observed:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>. . . if they [the slaves] die a Natural Death they [the underwriters] do not pay but in an Engagement [that is, a mutiny] if they are attacked and the Slaves are killed, they will be paid for them as much as for damages done for goods, and it is frequently done, just as if Horses were killed, they are paid for in the Gross, just as well as for Horses killed, but you don’t pay for Horses that die a Natural death.</nowiki><ref name="ftn23"> This statement is from the records of the Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, and does not appear elsewhere, but it certainly reflects Mansfield’s understanding of the law – see James Oldham, ‘Insurance Litigation Involving the Zong and Other British Slave Ships, 1780-1807’, ''The Journal of Legal History'', (2007) 28:3, pp.299-308 at p.316.</ref><br />
<br />
There was never any suggestion that convicts occupied the status of livestock and there was no question of them being insured as cargo.<br />
<br />
Nor was there any of the cold-blooded murder and mass rape that occurred on Stalin’s convict ships as they carried political and criminal exiles to Siberia between 1932 and 1953. One searches in vain for a single allegation of rape on board the ships that carried British and Irish convicts to Australia between 1787 and 1801 (the focus of this paper).<ref name="ftn24"> Martin J. Bollinger, ''Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West'', Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
This would mean little if the convicts lacked any means of responding to abuse, but from the First Fleet onwards, prisoners could sue the ships’ officers for loss of property, and it was not unusual for complaints about mistreatment to make their way to the Home Secretary (prior to sailing) or the Governor of the colony (upon arrival), and for formal investigations to be launched. By the end of the first decade, convicts were routinely mustered upon their arrival in Sydney Cove and asked whether they had any complaints about their gaolers.<ref name="ftn25"> The first civil court case in Australian history involved two of the convicts, a husband and wife, successfully suing one of the ships’ captains for the theft of their property – Log of the ''Alexander'', 5 April 1788, TNA ADM51/4375; NSW Court of Civil Jurisdiction: Case Papers and Minutes of Proceedings, 1788-1809, 2 July 1788, in SANSW 2/8147; Bruce Kercher and Brent Salter (eds), ''The Kercher Reports'', Sydney: The Francis Forbes Society for Australian Legal History, 2009, pp.15-20; Henry and Susanna Cable to Mrs Dinah Cable, 17 November 1788, copy sent to the Keeper of Norfolk Castle, published in ''Norfolk Chronicle'', 18 July 1789, pp.2-3; Johnson to Nepean, 12 July 1798, in George Mackaness (ed), ‘Some Letters of Rev. Richard Johnson’, Part II, Australian Historical Monographs, Volume XX (New Series), No.5; John White, ''Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales''<nowiki> [1790], Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962, pp.148-149. For legal commentary on the case, including the suspension of felony attaint, see David Neal, </nowiki>''The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp.1-8.<br />
<br />
From the First Fleet onwards, there are numerous examples of a convict complaint making its way to the Home Secretary or the Governor, followed by an investigation. On the First Fleet, see the example of Elizabeth Barber – Paul G. Fidlon, et al (eds.), ''The Journals and Letters of Lt. Ralph Clark, 1787-1792'', Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1981, p.35. Some of the convicts on the Second Fleet lodged complaints before sailing about their irons – Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10<sup>th</sup> and 26<sup>th</sup> March 1792, ''House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century'', (83) 1791-92, (hereafter ‘Accounts and Papers’) pp.259-368, at p.334.<br />
<br />
The first formal mention of a muster relates to the ''Britannia'' (1796) – ‘Journal of the Proceedings of the Ship ''Britannia'' from the Downs to Port Jackson and China, Commencing upon the 3<sup>rd</sup> of September 1796 & Ending upon the 30<sup>th</sup> of June 1798’ (hereafter Journal of the ''Britannia''), Dixson Library, SLNSW MSQ35, 30 May 1797. However, it is not clear that it was formalised at that time. The practice was certainly routine by the ''Minerva'' (1799) – Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), p.144.</ref><br />
<br />
When it came to mutiny, these protections were imperfect since public officials and judicial officers were reluctant to second-guess decisions made on an isolated ship in the middle of the Atlantic, but as we shall see, the legal and administrative oversight of convict ships generally served to constrain excessively abusive conduct.<br />
<br />
= 5. Mutinies and Conspiracies =<br />
Fourteen of the 19 mutinies, conspiracies or alleged conspiracies in the period 1787 to 1801 took place or were intended to take place in the first month after sailing, the intention being to take the ship to France or North America.<ref name="ftn26"> For one of the mutinies we have no details.</ref> The only successful mutiny, that of the ''Lady Shore'', occurred seven weeks after sailing and the soldiers took the ship into La Plata, a Spanish port (in what is now Argentina). This was a risky course of action, and the Spanish authorities were at first uncertain how to treat the mutineers.<ref name="ftn27"> John Black, ''An Authentic Narrative of the Mutiny on Board the Ship Lady Shore'', Ipswich, 1798, pp.34-5.</ref> It followed that once the convict transports had entered the South Atlantic, they were generally free from any serious threat of mutiny.<br />
<br />
Among the mutinies and the conspiracies that reached an advanced stage of planning, there were two broad strategies – to attack the sentries when the convicts were on deck for exercise (by far the most common) and/or to take one of the ship’s senior officers, preferably the captain, hostage while there were inspecting the prison, and then to negotiate.<br />
<br />
There was understandable fear of an uprising among the hardened political rebels which some of these ships were carrying, and this fear was not unjustified. Of the 18 voyages where the convicts were involved, nine involved Irish convicts: the ratio of transports carrying Irish convicts in this period was only around 25 percent. Of the five actual mutinies, three involved Irish convicts, and the uprising on the ''Lady Shore'' included Irish soldiers (although it was not led by them). Four of the six proven conspiracies were also planned by Irish political prisoners. So to a considerable extent, this was an Irish problem.<br />
<br />
Soldiers played some part in two of the five mutinies and two of the six conspiracies, although they were thought to have been involved in at least two of the other conspiracies. Crew members were involved in at least three of the mutinies and conspiracies, and there were concerns of them possibly playing a role in four others. Women convicts were potentially important because they had the freedom of the deck; they were thought to have been involved in two cases, and there were suspicions of them playing a role in two more.<br />
<br />
== 5.1 Mutinies ==<br />
Among the convict mutinies, the pattern was broadly similar to that of the ''Albemarle'', one of the convict transports in the Third Fleet (1791) and the first ship to experience a convict uprising. She was 13 days out of Portsmouth, and had been separated by storm from the other ships in her division. There was no advance warning. A number of convicts had been allowed on deck for exercise in the morning, at a time when most of the watch were aloft. Several of the prisoners rushed the sentries, seizing their weapons and were charging the helmsman when the captain – who happened to be on deck at the time – slipped into his cabin, grabbed his blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders in the shoulder. This caused the mutineers to abandon their attack and retreat below.<br />
<br />
All hands were called on deck, the small arms were issued, and a search party was sent below. They returned with three of the ringleaders, the first of whom confessed, probably under the threat of hanging, and named the other two as the principals, one of whom was the man that had been wounded in the affray. A conference was convened between the naval agent, the captain, the ship’s officers and men, and the soldiers, and (as the captain later wrote):<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm; this had the desired effect upon the convicts in general, who immediately sent us a letter confessing all their horrid intentions, and of taking the ship to America.<ref name="ftn28"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
Two other prisoners seem to have died as a result of their injuries. Another two were given two dozen lashes, and the informant was given three dozen, a remarkably mild response to a mutiny, where some of the ship’s officers might well have lost their lives. Two of the crew who had passed knives to the convicts (probably for cutting through their shackles), and otherwise assisted, were placed in irons and delivered to British authorities at Madeira.<ref name="ftn29"> On the convicts who seem to have died from their wounds – Extract of a Letter from Lieutenant Young, 24 April 1791, TNA T1/694/208. On the floggings and the crew members – Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the notable exception that the participants were not Irish, the insurrection on the ''Albemarle'' was typical of a convict mutiny – a sudden attack on the sentries while the prisoners were on deck for exercise, assistance from some of the crew or the guard, a successful counter-attack led by the captain and crew rather than the soldiers, confessions extracted through flogging or the threat of something worse, a formal conference of the ship’s officers and crew, a unanimous decision that prompt action must be taken for the safety of the ship, the execution of one or two mutineers, followed by a relatively moderate amount of flogging and closer confinement.<br />
<br />
== 5.2 Conspiracies ==<br />
Planned mutinies that were discovered before an attack was launched were usually exposed by prisoners who were in some sense outsiders (gentleman convicts, or in one case, a Jewish prisoner), or by men who had the confidence of the ship’s officers (convicts who had been freed from their chains to work about the ship, and/or were regular informants). It might be regarded as strange that ‘trusties’ or informants would be approached by the conspirators, but it was valuable, if at all possible, to have the assistance of someone – soldier, crew member, female convict or trustie – who had the freedom of the deck. <br />
<br />
There is much less uniformity in the pattern of the conspiracies, since the details were pieced together from informants’ accounts and whatever could be ascertained through flogging the alleged conspirators. In either case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there was some measure of lies or fantasy, although in the cases described here as conspiracies, there was physical evidence of the intention to mutiny – in most cases, a significant number of cut irons or the accumulation of cutting implements. If the ship were in port, that would indicate an intent to escape, but if they were at sea, then the removal of their irons, or the accumulation of a significant number of knives and other metal objects, could only mean an intention to mutiny.<br />
<br />
The ''Barwell'' (1797) was carrying English convicts, but the conspiracy seems to have emerged among the soldiers, some of whom had been riotous since coming on board. Two of the guards (at least one of whom was Irish) had been court-martialled and sent ashore, and the sergeant of the guard had run from the ship before sailing with several of the crew. The naval agent at Portsmouth had reported to his superiors: ‘The ''Barwell''’s officers consider the guard as worthless, and as little deserving of trust as the convicts!’<ref name="ftn30"> Patton to the Transport Board, 24 October 1797, TNA ADM108/49/395.</ref><br />
<br />
Four and a half months into the voyage, two of the convicts reported that several of the soldiers had approached them about launching a mutiny. The muskets had been loaded, and they would be handed over to the convicts once they had commenced the attack. A search was conducted and a number of convicts were found to be out of irons, and the bulkhead (which functioned as the bars to the prison) had been tampered with.<br />
<br />
Following a consultation among the ship’s officers, somewhere around two dozen of the convicts were flogged, most with two or three dozen lashes, although the ringleaders were given six, eight and ten dozen. By the standards of the day (and in comparison with the punishments handed out to mutinous soldiers or marines), this was not especially severe. Three of the soldiers were flogged – several dozen lashes – and confined among the prisoners. There was also evidence against one of the two Ensigns – the most high-ranking of the soldiers on board – but it was not unequivocal, and he was confined to his quarters for the rest of the voyage.<ref name="ftn31"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37; ''R v George Bond'', Court of Vice Admiralty, Letters of Marque and Related Documents, Registrar of the Court, 1795-1812, 20 August 1798, TNA HCA1/64 & SRNSW, 5/1163, p.91ff.</ref><br />
<br />
== 5.3 Alleged Conspiracies ==<br />
With the eight alleged conspiracies, the ships’ officers were relying entirely on what they had been told by convict informants and what could be extracted from confessions obtained through flogging or the threat of the same. It was these cases that Hunter and Bigge had in mind when they wrote of false alarms and the groundless fear of combinations, although there were fewer of them than there were actual mutinies and proven conspiracies.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for us to know today, if it was then, which of these supposed conspiracies were real and which were not. Most of the actual conspiracies were first revealed to the ships’ officers in exactly the same way as the ones for which we have little or no external evidence.<br />
<br />
In several cases, there is evidence that the informants were expecting favourable treatment as a result, but given that they were placing their lives in jeopardy by informing on their fellow-prisoners, this is perhaps not surprising. And on several occasions, the alleged conspirators claimed that the master had deliberately suborned witnesses, through offers of payment or other favours, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Then as now, it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of these stories.<ref name="ftn32"> Allegations were made of witnesses suborned or threatened in cases involving the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Barwell'' (1797), and the ''Minerva'' (1798).</ref><br />
<br />
What is clear, is that the ships’ officers were terrified of a convict mutiny. In almost all cases, the alleged plot involved the immediate execution of the ship’s officers, and the fate of Captain Willcocks and his chief mate (on the ''Lady Shore'') seems to confirm that their lives were at risk, particularly when (as was almost always the case) they took the lead in resisting an attack.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning of the Australian transportation system, there was good reason to suspect that the convicts would take the ship if they could. Of the last three ships sent to North America (in 1784, in the immediate aftermath of the War of Independence), two had been successfully taken by the convicts.<ref name="ftn33"> Regarding the mutiny on the ''Swift'' and the ''Mercury'' (1784), see Emma Christopher, ''A Merciless Place'', Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010, Chapter 12.</ref> And in the spring and summer of 1786, in the months before the First Fleet was commissioned, there had been two serious insurrections on the hulks, resulting in a number of deaths.<ref name="ftn34"> ‘Report of all the Convicts. . . on board the ''Fortunee'' Hulk. . . from the 20<sup>th</sup> February to 26<sup>th</sup> May 1786’, TNA T1/638; ‘Report of Convicts under Sentence of Transportation. . ., on board the ''Censor'' Hulk. . . from the 12<sup>th</sup> April to the 12<sup>th</sup> July 1786’, TNA T1/634.</ref><br />
<br />
These fears were periodically reinforced by reports of conspiracies on the smaller vessels that carried the convicts from the outer regions of Britain and Ireland to their port of embarkation. In 1789, there was a plot to take the ''Peggy'', a small vessel bringing down some prisoners from Scotland, revealed by a convict informant, Thomas Watling, who would go on to become a prominent artist in the colony.<ref name="ftn35"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 11 & 13 June 1789.</ref> The following year, there was an insurrection on a sloop carrying convicts from Lancaster to Portsmouth, which required the intervention of the navy before it was finally put down.<ref name="ftn36"> ''Caledonian Mercury'', 1 February 1790, p.2.</ref> There was another conspiracy on one of the convict ships in Ireland in 1796, again revealed by one of the prisoners.<ref name="ftn37"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796</ref><br />
<br />
And of course, the taking of the ''Lady Shore'' and the murder of Captain Willcox received significant attention in the British press in May 1798 when the news of the mutiny first arrived home, and again in late 1799 when one of the mutineers who had been captured was tried and executed.<ref name="ftn38"> ''Mirror of the Times'', 23 November 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25 November 1799; ''General Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Whitehall Evening Post'', 26 November 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 27 November 1799; ''Times'', 27 November 1799, p.3; ''Observer'', 1 December 1799; ''Evening Mail'', 4 December 1799; ''Times'', 5 December 1799, p.3; ''Morning Herald'', 5 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 20 December 1799; ''Times'', 21 December 1799, p.3; ''Oracle & Daily Advertiser'', 21 December 1799; ''Naval Chronicle'' II, July to Dec 1799, pp.629-630; ''St James’s Chronicle or British Evening Post'', 21-24 December 1799; ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 23-25 December 1799; ''Lloyd’s Evening Post'' & ''London Packet or New Lloyd’s Evening Post'', 25-27 December 1799.</ref><br />
<br />
As already noted, these fears were heightened when there were Irish convicts on board, particularly political insurrectionists, many of whom were hardened by civil war and what would now be regarded as terrorist activities. Joseph Holt, an Irish rebel leader who sailed with his family on the ''Minerva'' (1799), and enjoyed the freedom of the deck, told the chief mate that he was a fool to have thought of trusting him with a gun when the ship being chased by a privateer: given half a chance, he said, he would have turned it on the poop deck and freed as many of the convicts as he could.<ref name="ftn39"> T. Crofton Croker (ed.), ''Memoirs of Joseph Holt'', London: Henry Colburn, 1838, Vol. 1, pp.47-52.</ref><br />
<br />
Similar concerns were held whenever there were republicans on board. Rumours of conspiracy followed the so-called Scottish Martyrs – gentlemen exiles rather than convicts – who were sent out to New South Wales on the ''Surprize'' (1794). And while the claims that they were at the heart of conspiracies on board that ship were probably unfounded, there is no doubt that these men had been deliberately provocative in stirring up republican sentiments among the officers and passengers, and in forming improper relationships with some of the prisoners.<br />
<br />
Those ships that sailed in the immediate aftermath of the extensive naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore in 1797, the ''Lady Shore'' among them, had additional reasons to be concerned. The sailors on the ''Hillsborough'' (1798) refused to sail unless a prisoner named Thomas McCann was removed from the ship. McCann had been a sailor on the ''Sandwich'' and had originally been sentenced to death for his part in the Nore mutiny. Since coming on board, he had been organising protests among the convicts over the state of their provisions, and the crew were concerned that he would lead a mutiny. Even though he was removed from the ship, his influence persisted, with the convicts continuing to organise protests when they felt that they were not being given their full rations.<ref name="ftn40">= William Noah, Voyage to Sydney in the Ship Hillsborough 1798-1799. . ., Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1978, p.19; G.E. Manwaring and Bonamy Dobree, The Floating Republic: An Account of the Mutinies at Spithead and the Nore in 1797, Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books, 2004, p.277. =<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
So while we cannot be certain which of these alleged conspiracies were real, there were often good reasons for the ships’ officers to be concerned. Hunter’s and Bigge’s criticisms need to be read with some scepticism.<br />
<br />
= 6. Responding to a Convict Mutiny =<br />
== 6.1 Suppressing the Insurrection ==<br />
The initial response to a convict mutiny was usually led by the ship’s officers and not by the military guard. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was Captain George Bowen who seized a blunderbuss and shot one of the ringleaders, causing the mutineers to retreat. With the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the search of the convicts’ quarters for weapons was led by the Captain, Michael Hogan, and then an attack on the prison shortly thereafter when the conspirators attempted to break out. In the case of the ''Lady Shore'' (1797), it was Captain John Willcocks and his first mate who immediately responded, while (according to one report) the ranking military officer was hiding under his bed.<ref name="ftn41"> On the ''Albemarle'' (1791) – George Bowen, ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292 & HRNSW Vol. 1:2, pp.487-488; Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a; Account of Robert Cock, TNA CO201/6/294-295 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-9.<br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis ''(1795) – Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.<br />
<br />
On the ''Lady Shore'' (1797) – J.G. Semple Lisle, ''The Life of Major J.G. Semple Lisle'', London: W. Stewart, 1799, p.195</ref><br />
<br />
Captain James Stewart of the ''Ann'' (1800) was undertaking his regular inspection of the convicts’ quarters when he was seized by some of the prisoners, as part of a coordinated plan to take the ship. He escaped with the assistance of several other convicts, and while the details are scant, he was part of the group that rescued his mate and the gunner. On the ''Hercules'' (1801), Captain Luckyn Betts was the first man out of the cabin to confront the mutineers who had charged the quarter deck, and had a blunderbuss snapped in his face. (It misfired.)<ref name="ftn42"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
The affray rarely lasted long. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), it was a matter of seconds; on the ''Hercules'' (1801), it seems to have lasted about 15 minutes. However, there was often a period of some uncertainty before the security of the ship was fully restored. Having quelled the insurrection, the ship’s officers would search the prison, and bring up those who were suspected of being involved. They would also inspect the prisoners’ irons, to ascertain whether they had been cut. Metal implements, particularly knives, were used for sawing through the iron, and the convicts would disguise their efforts by filling the furrows with coloured wax.<br />
<br />
== 6.2 Investigating Rumours ==<br />
Where the ship’s officers were informed of the conspiracy by one of the convicts, the master would sometimes wait for better evidence. On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), two of the prisoners passed a message to Captain Hogan, who had them brought aft for questioning. They revealed that the sergeant of the guard had offered to provide them with knives in return for payment. Hogan asked the ranking officer, an ensign, to have the troops fall in with their kits, which were searched. Sergeant Ellis was found to have six knives in his bag, and the ensign revealed that several days before, the sergeant had lied to him about having lost four of these knives, and he had given him two more. The touch-holes of six firelocks had also been spiked, and two pistols sent to Ellis for cleaning had been disabled. A search was conducted of the prison, but it appears that nothing of significance was found. Hogan decided to wait for stronger evidence. He cautioned his mates and the petty officers, along with some of the seamen whom he particularly trusted, to watch for any sudden attack, and he later wrote that he was keeping a strict eye on the conduct of the soldiers. It was only when he obtained further evidence from another source that Hogan began a formal interrogation of the suspects.<ref name="ftn43"> TNA CO201/13/146; HRNSW Vol.3, p.110.</ref><br />
<br />
Captain William Hingston, master of the ''Hillsborough'' (1798), reacted in a similar way. He was cautious about the information he had been supplied by a convict informant, and after arming the crew, set a trap designed to encourage the mutineers to show their hand.<ref name="ftn44"> Ebenezer Beriah Kelly, ''Autobiography'', Norwich: John W. Stedman, 1856, pp.17-19.</ref> Much the same appears to have happened on the ''Minerva'' (1799), where a number of stories were passed to the captain before any action was taken. Still uncertain as to the seriousness of the plot, the ship’s officers revolved to lock the supposed ringleaders in a strong room rather than flogging them to extract confessions. More specific stories emerged later in the voyage, when stronger action was taken.<ref name="ftn45"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000 (hereafter Price), pp.83-84, 88-89.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Royal Admiral'' (1800) one of the passengers, a junior official going out to take up a post at New South Wales, reported rumours from among the convicts. Captain William Wilson reacted in a measured way and tightened security.<ref name="ftn46"> For example, Wilson had a barricade constructed across the deck, and allowed the passengers to organise their own watch – Journal of the ''Royal Admiral'', IOR L/MAR/B/338-I and ‘Journal by Ja<sup>s</sup> Wilshire Kept on Board the Royal Admiral, Capt<sup>n</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Wilson, Comm., from England to New South Wales’, 5 May to 16 July 1800, Mitchell Library, SLNSW MLMSS 1296, 20 & 23 June 1800.</ref> On the ''Hercules'' (1801), where there was later a violent insurrection, the master made no response when the first stories emerged.<ref name="ftn47"> See the evidence of Thomas Trotter, Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court, 6 July 1802, CO201/21/245-246.</ref> The master of the ''Atlas'' (1801), which sailed at the same time as the ''Hercules'', suspected that the convicts had poisoned the guard, a highly improbable scenario. Captain Richard Brooks was jumping at shadows, but he investigated the supposed conspiracy over several weeks, trying to make sense of the limited evidence available to him, all the time allowing the convicts on deck (carefully chained) for daily exercise.<ref name="ftn48"> Journal of the ''Atlas'', IOR L/MAR/B/27E, various entries from 27 February to 11 April 1802.</ref><br />
<br />
It was common for the ships’ officers to flog the convicts in order to extract a confession, and punishment would often cease once a prisoner had admitted his role and implicated others. An officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) explained to this brother that following the revelation of the conspiracy: ‘We got upon deck the ringleaders, to the number of forty, who, after a severe punishment, confessed the whole.’<ref name="ftn49"> Letter from an officer on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' to his brother in London, 22 October 1795, published in ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 15 January 1796.</ref> Captain Hogan wrote: ‘When each man received punishment, he gave information against others, evading as much as possible the part he had in it himself. . .’<ref name="ftn50"> TNA CO201/13/150a; HRNSW Vol.3, p.109.</ref><br />
<br />
A British official at Madeira wrote about the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) when the ship called there briefly to offload the two sailors suspected of being involved. He reported that when the first of the ringleaders was brought on deck, he was threatened with immediate hanging: ‘he, from terror, declared that if they would pardon him he would discover the whole plot, which he accordingly did’. He named another two men as the ringleaders, one of whom had been wounded in the affray.<ref name="ftn51"> Robert Cock to the Duke of Leeds, 13 May 1791, TNA CO201/6/294-295; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.447-449.</ref><br />
<br />
The probative value of evidence extracted through flogging or the threat of hanging, is of course highly questionable, and such practices had ceased to be employed in the British criminal justice system. The author has been unable to find any precedents for this extraordinary practice on board these merchant ships, which was not challenged by any of the authorities at the time.<br />
<br />
== 6.3 The Ship’s Council ==<br />
There appears to have been a convention that masters would convene a conference of the ship’s officers, and ideally, the passengers and crew members as well, before making any firm decisions about the response to a mutiny, particularly when a decision involved the execution of one of the mutineers. There also seems to have been a practice of including a relatively senior officer from another ship, if one was in company, or that individuals independent of the ship’s officers would be involved.<br />
<br />
There was no legal obligation in English maritime law to consult with the ship’s officers before disciplining the crew, but according to Abbott (1802):<br />
<br />
. . . the master should, except in cases requiring his immediate interposition, take the advice of the persons next below him in authority, as well as to prevent the operation of passion in his own breast, as to secure witnesses to the propriety of his conduct. For the master on his return to this country may be called upon by action at law, to answer to a mariner, who has been beaten or imprisoned by him, or by his order, in the course of a voyage; and for the justification of his conduct, he should be able to shew not only that there was a sufficient cause for chastisement, but also that the chastisement itself was reasonable and moderate, otherwise the mariner may recover damages proportionate to the injury received.<ref name="ftn52"> Charles Abbott, ''A Treatise of the Law Relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen'', London, 1802 (hereafter Abbott), pp.126-127.</ref><br />
<br />
The masters of East Indiamen were expected to bring an offender before a ‘consultation’ of officers prior to issuing any punishments, and there appears to have been a widespread convention that British seafarers would not be discharged in foreign ports without formal consultation.<ref name="ftn53"> On the former, see Peter Earle, ''Sailors: English Merchant Seamen, 1650-1775'', London: Methuen, 2007, p.154.</ref> The first known example of this is the Strange fur-trading expedition to the north-west coast of America in 1785-86 (in the ''Captain Cook'' and the ''Experiment'') where the owners, David Scott & Co of Bombay, wanted a council of the officers to be held if unruly men were to be put ashore at a foreign port:<br />
<br />
. . . & as You have not the aid of martial Law, we have to desire Your discharging every officer and man that may show the least tendency to subvert discipline, at the first English Port or at China. In such case we would advise Your holding a Council of the Officers, & entering their report on the Log Book; as we feel an interest in every man who embarks on the expedition, it would be pleasing to see that no person was discharged but in consequence of the voices of the Officers.<ref name="ftn54"> David Scott & Co, ‘Sailing Directions to James Strange Esq., Director of the Exploring Expedition to the No. West Coast of America and towards the North Pole’, 7 December 1785, in ''Records of Fort St. George: James Strange’s Journal and Narrative of the Commercial Expedition from Bombay to the Northwest Coast of America'', Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press, 1982, p.35. </ref><br />
<br />
And legislation passed in 1799 for the further regulation of the slave trade, prescribed that the masters of ships engaged in that trade were not to discharge unruly mariners without first consulting with one of His Majesty’s ships of war.<ref name="ftn55"> Abbott, pp.128-129.</ref><br />
<br />
While there was no comparable body of law or practice relating to the transportation of convicts, it is clear that most of the masters acknowledged the convention that they should consult with their officers, at least when exemplary punishments were required following a mutiny. What is perhaps of greater interest, is that over time, this formalised into a legal obligation.<br />
<br />
As previously noted, there was no legal authority to try and punish mutineers, be they crew members, passengers, soldiers or convicts; any execution, flogging or confinement had to be undertaken as an act of self-defence. It is for this reason that most accounts of these ships’ conferences explicitly state that they executed the prisoner for the preservation of the ship and her crew. It was also conventional to report that such decisions were unanimous.<ref name="ftn56"> Examples include the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the ''Royal Admiral'' (1792), the ''Surprize'' (1794), the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the ''Barwell'' (1797), the ''Minerva'' (1798), and the ''Ann'' (1800).</ref><br />
<br />
Thus, on the ''Albemarle'' (1791), the master convened a conference that included the naval agent (a naval lieutenant assigned to the convoy for monitoring the navigation), the ship’s officers and crew, and the soldiers. The naval agent specifically noted in his account that there were no other ships in company to hold a formal trial. According to the captain:<br />
<br />
. . . it was unanimously thought proper for the future preservation of the ship and our lives, and to strike terror in the convicts, immediately to hang the two last at the fire-yard-arm. . .<ref name="ftn57"> ‘Extract of a Letter from Madeira, 24<sup>th</sup> April 1791, Account of the Mutiny on B’d the Albemarle’, TNA CO201/6/291-292; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-488.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), the First Mate wrote:<br />
<br />
It was therefore agreed unanimously, by all the free persons on board, that the ringleaders should be punished with severity, which was put into execution. . . Had these steps not been taken the ship could never have been secure, as it evidently appeared the convicts, headed by the serjeant, had bound themselves by oath to murder the captain and the principal officers.<ref name="ftn58"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.107-108.</ref><br />
<br />
While we lack a detailed account of several ships, there appear to have been ship’s conferences on all of the vessels where mutinies or conspiracies occurred, except three. One of these was the ''Lady Shore'', where the mutiny was successful, but in the other two cases – the ''Britannia'' (1796), the master was strongly censured and on the ''Hercules'' (1801), found guilty of manslaughter for the failure to consult. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the alleged conspiracies, since in some cases, the reaction was mild, but we know of ship’s councils in two of the eight cases.<br />
<br />
It was usual for there to be a judicial inquiry when these ships arrived in Sydney, particularly where men had died, where there had been a significant amount of flogging, and/or where there was a formal protest by one of the convicts or military officers. As long as there had been a conference and unanimity, it was rare to second-guess the decisions taken in the immediate aftermath of the mutiny or conspiracy. However, it was also rare for the authorities in Sydney to impose further punishment on the conspirators, even where the ship’s officers had deferred making a decision until their arrival.<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Britannia'' (1796), there had been extensive flogging and some of those punished had subsequently died. A judicial inquiry was held and, as the Judge Advocate reported in his journal: <br />
<br />
As these punishments had been inflicted by the direction of the master, without consulting any of the officers on board as to the measure of them he was highly censured. . .<ref name="ftn59"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates. . . Charges Imputed to Captain Dennett’, 13 June 1797, TNA CO201/14/31ff; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board the ''Britannia'', 5/1156, No.13, Reel 1929 or COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
The second case was that of the ''Hercules'' (1801), where Captain Betts was prosecuted in the Court of Vice Admiralty, for the deaths of 12 or 13 convicts in the course of the insurrection, and for executing one of the ringleaders in the immediate aftermath. He was cleared of the deaths that occurred as a direct result of the mutiny – indeed, very little evidence was taken in relation to this charge, so it appears that the court did not regard it as a matter requiring serious attention.<br />
<br />
However, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter on the second charge and fined £500, a substantial sum of money. Based on the evidence at the trial, it seems likely that all of the officers agreed with his course of action, but he had failed to conduct a formal consultation; and the execution had possibly occurred an hour after the mutiny was over (although there was conflicting evidence on this point). The sentence was suspended for confirmation by the Home Secretary, and the ultimate outcome is unknown.<ref name="ftn60"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254.</ref><br />
<br />
== 6.4 Punishment ==<br />
While the execution, flogging and/or confinement of mutineers were strictly-speaking not punishments, but rather acts of self-defence necessary to ensure the safety of the ship and its crew, contemporaries were not always careful in making this distinction.<br />
<br />
''Executions''<br />
<br />
There were executions on four of the 11 ships where an actual mutiny or conspiracy was involved. Two of the ringleaders of the mutiny on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) were hung at the fore-yard arm following a ship’s council. Lieutenant Robert Parry Young, the naval agent, was clearly uncomfortable with the decision, writing to the Admiralty that it was for the general good and the safety of the ship: ‘I had no authority for so doing but the moment required a severe example’ and he hoped their Lordships would support him if there were any bad consequences. ‘It was with difficulty I could prevent the ship’s company from executing more of them from revenge, for had the convicts not been repulsed, the massacre would have been considerable on our part.’<ref name="ftn61"> Young to Stephens, 24 April 1791, TNA HO28/8/99-100a; TNA T1/694; TNA ADM106/2638, 7 July 1791; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.487-8.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the principals was shot in the presence of all the convicts, who had been assembled on deck for the purpose. Captain Betts shot one of the ringleaders on the ''Hercules'' (1801), not so much as a considered act designed to suppress any further intentions of mutiny, but on an adrenalin high, egged on by the other officers on the quarter deck.<ref name="ftn62"> On the ''Ann'' (1800) – Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801. On the ''Hercules'' (1801) – Betts to the Court of Vice Admiralty, 8 July 1802, ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
We have few details of what transpired on the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), but the decision was taken by the naval agent, following what was described as ‘the necessary inquiry’. The one brief account we have of the episode says that many of the convicts were out of irons, but there is no mention of an actual uprising. There appears to have been some kind of judicial inquiry upon arrival in New South Wales, since the Judge Advocate wrote that the Agent:<br />
<br />
. . . thought it indispensable to the safety of the ship to cause an instant example to be made, and ordered one of the convicts who was found out of irons to be executed that night. Others he punished the next morning; and by these measures, as might well be expected, threw such a damp on the spirits of the rest, that he heard no more during the voyage of attempts or intentions to take the ship.<ref name="ftn63"> David Collins, ''An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales''<nowiki> [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975 (hereafter Collins), Vol.1, p.261.</nowiki></ref><br />
<br />
It is difficult for us to imagine why such an extreme response was considered necessary, but it needs to be placed in context. These men were bound together in a small society, surrounded by water, thousands of miles from the nearest British authorities. The punishment for ‘piracy’, the legal term for a mutiny at sea, was hanging on the shoreline at Execution Dock. The British Navy would go to great lengths to track down mutineers who successfully took one of their ships, sending the ''Pandora'' all the way out to Tahiti, in an attempt to capture the men who had taken the ''Bounty''.<ref name="ftn64"> Geoffrey Rawson, ''Pandora’s Last Voyage'', London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd,'' ''1963.</ref><br />
<br />
In some ways, the early Australian convict transports were in a similar position to the wagon trains that crossed the American prairies in the second half of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, where the emigrants were obliged to make and enforce their own system of justice once they had moved beyond the boundaries of the state. When confronted with a killing by one of their number, the emigrants were obliged to organise a search party, constitute a court, make a decision on guilt or innocence, agree on a form of punishment and carry out the same.<br />
<br />
As with merchant ships, they relied on a form of popular justice, meeting as a body politic to make decisions rather than deferring to the notional leader of the company. And, as with the merchant ships, it was not unusual for them to appoint strangers – individuals from other companies, or people they had met along the trail – to perform the functions of judge and jury.<ref name="ftn65"> John Phillip Reid, ''Policing the Elephant: Crime, Punishment, and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail'', San Marino, California: Huntingdon Library, 1997, pp.110, 117-132.</ref><br />
<br />
Expulsion was an option, but whether from a sense of justice or a concern for their fellow emigrants, there were numerous occasions on which they resigned themselves to the necessity of taking the offender’s life. As a journal-keeper on one of these wagon trains wrote:<br />
<br />
It was justice conscientiously administered, without law – an action necessary under the circumstances. . . It was a matter the necessity of which was deplorable, but the execution of which was imposed upon those who were on the spot and uncovered the convincing facts.<ref name="ftn66"> Ibid p.196.</ref><br />
<br />
There were, however, a number of significant differences between American wagon trains and British merchant ships. The ships’ masters were expected, as a matter of convention and ultimately of law, to organise a conference of all the officers before making life and death decisions. In taking a life, they were expected to have acted in the immediate aftermath of a violent uprising, and for the safety of the ship; unlike the emigrants on the Overland Trail, they were not permitted to organise a criminal trial and execute justice in their own right. Unlike the wagon trains, merchant ships engaged in the convict trade were bound by a formal system of justice, and they were subject to the criminal law once they arrived at their destination.<br />
<br />
''Flogging''<br />
<br />
Flogging was relatively common on merchant and naval ships, for the maintenance of order, and it was generally necessary on ships carrying convicted criminals to the Antipodes. It was a disciplinary measure, similar to the corporal punishment imposed (at the time) by a parent on a child, a teacher on a student or a master on a servant. In the case of insurrections, it was also justified as a means of self-defence to restore the safety of the ship.<br />
<br />
In most cases, floggings were confined to the ringleaders, or to convicts who had been caught out of irons, and the number of lashes was relatively few. On the ''Albemarle'' (1791), for example, once two of the ringleaders had been hung, punishments were administered to a handful of others – three dozen to one and two dozen to another two. This was an extraordinarily mild response, given the seriousness of the threat to the ship.<ref name="ftn67"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the Albemarle Transport, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791’, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Ann'' (1800), one of the ringleaders was shot and another was given 250 lashes. That was a serious punishment, but properly administered it should not have threatened the man’s life. Floggings of this kind were frequently handed out to soldiers and marines for offences that were much less serious.<ref name="ftn68"> Letter from Captain Stewart at Rio de Janeiro, 26 August 1800, published in Hull Packet, 10 February 1801.</ref><br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Barwell'' (1797), the risk of a mutiny was very real, with a significant number of the convicts out of irons. The ship’s journal is difficult to read, but it appears that several dozen men were given two or three dozen lashes, a mild punishment, however one of the ringleaders was given ten dozen, another eight and several six. This was a measured response and it would not have been considered inappropriate by the authorities in Sydney or at home.<ref name="ftn69"> Journal of the ''Barwell'', IOR L/MAR/B/420G, 36-37.</ref><br />
<br />
The punishment on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795) was more extensive. As noted above, there was clear evidence in this case that the sergeant of the guard had been collecting knives so the convicts could cut their irons, and he had disabled many of the sentries’ weapons. A significant number of convicts had freed themselves from their shackles. It will be recalled that Captain Hogan was slow in responding, waiting until he had clear evidence that the conspiracy was real, and he interrogated the suspected mutineers over several days, collecting detailed statements. Forty-two men and eight women were punished, in varying degrees. There was a second conspiracy around four weeks later, and on this occasion, around forty of the leaders were ‘severely punished’.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the surviving sources do not explain how many lashes they were given. The only occasion where a number is mentioned is two dozen lashes given to one of the soldiers, a mild punishment. The subsequent inquiry by the Judge Advocate concluded:<br />
<br />
. . . we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn70"> ‘Inquiry re Conspiracy. . . ‘, SRNSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17, p.387; TNA CO201/13/160a.</ref><br />
<br />
''Confinement and Removal from the Ship''<br />
<br />
Where military officers, gentlemen convicts or crew members were involved, and/or where the evidence was unclear, ships’ captains were much less willing to resort to violent punishment and suspected conspirators were confined in some way. <br />
<br />
''The ship’s company:'' The crew members on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) who were thought to have assisted with the mutiny were confined and offloaded at Madeira: there is no evidence that they were flogged, and it is unlikely that they were later punished in any other way. This was not unusual: when sailing in company, it was common for unruly crew members to be removed from the ship and placed on board the commodore, or one of the other vessels in the convoy.<ref name="ftn71"> Robert Parry Young, ‘Remarks on board the ''Albemarle'' Transport’, the 9<sup>th</sup> April 1791, TNA T1/694/211 & TNA HO28/8/101-102a.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Surprize'' (1794), Captain Campbell had become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of his Chief Mate, a Mr Macpherson. At a time when there were already allegations of a conspiracy among the convicts, some of the crew claimed that Macpherson had deliberately set the sails so as to cause her to drop back in the fleet. Campbell spoke to the commodore (''HMS Suffolk'') and had him removed from the ship. While the Scottish Martyrs sought to make a great deal of this, it is clear that Macpherson was openly associating with the republican exiles, and had suffered some kind of breakdown; he had lost the confidence of his captain. There was nothing untoward about Campbell’s response: two weeks later, the master of the ''Ponsborne'', an East Indiaman sailing in company with the ''Surprize'', sent three men, including the boatswain’s mate, on board the ''Suffolk'' for disorderly behaviour, receiving three others in their place.<ref name="ftn72"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SRNSW 5/1156, pp.2, 4 & 12<nowiki>; </nowiki>Patrick Campbell at TNA CO201/12/188-189 & HRNSW Vol.2, pp.860-1; Journal of the ''Ponsborne'', IOR L/MAR/B/462J, 15 May 1794.</ref><br />
<br />
''The military guard:'' One of the soldiers on the ''Boddington'' (1793) was placed in irons for the duration of the voyage, with the expectation that he would be punished in the colony. There is no evidence that he was.<ref name="ftn73"> Kent to Nepean, 18 March 1793, TNA HO42/25/160-161a.</ref> On the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), Sergeant Ellis – against whom there was clear evidence of his complicity in the plot – was confined on the poop deck and then flogged to extract a confession, although the number of lashes is unknown. One of the privates was also flogged, twice, receiving two dozen the second time, but another two were merely confined and one of these had his head shaved.<ref name="ftn74"> TNA CO201/13/150a, 156, 158a; HRNSW Vol.3, pp.103-109.</ref><br />
<br />
''Convicts:'' While Captain Campbell believed that two of the Scottish Martyrs were at the bottom of the conspiracy on board the ''Surprize'' (1794), he was conscious that their treatment was being closely followed in the British press, and they were simply confined. Campbell wrote to the ship‘s owners:<br />
<br />
I have taken every means in my power to be cautious in the treatment of so many descriptions of people, and it is reasonable to suppose from the connections of Palmer and Skirving, the two apparent ringleaders of this Plot, that every exertion will be used in their favour, and to slander those whose lives they meant to take but whatever you may hear you may rest perfectly satisfied that I have taken such cautious Steps as to put it out of the power of the most malicious to injure me or any of the Civil Officers appointed by Government. . .<ref name="ftn75"> Copy of Capt. Campbell’s letter from Rio Janeiro to Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, n.d., TNA CO201/12/186.</ref><br />
<br />
On the ''Minerva'' (1799), Captain Salkeld responded to the initial rumours of a conspiracy by locking 14 of the supposed mutineers in a strong room. The stories persisted, but Salkeld was unable to find hard evidence of a conspiracy. The surgeon, John Washington Price, described their dilemma:<br />
<br />
Though we are sensible of his guilt, yet we could not procure sufficient evidence against him (those who could give it being afraid to come forward), we permit him to remain unpunished, but two of his confederates who have been in the habit of both receiving and forwarding messages from and to him have been put in double irons with a chain passing from each through the bars that are a midship in the prison. And there we leave them to commune together and to deliberate on the best method to effect their liberation.<ref name="ftn76"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, pp.120-121.</ref><br />
<br />
= 7. Accountable in Law =<br />
As previously observed, the masters of convict transports were legally accountable for the manner in which they responded to a mutiny or a conspiracy on board their ships. Prior to the formal establishment of a Court of Vice Admiralty in 1798, the Governors relied on the Judge Advocate and a bench of magistrates to conduct administrative inquiries into mutinies, conspiracies and allegations of maltreatment on board the convict transports.<br />
<br />
''Unreported Inquiries:'' There is no formal record of such an inquiry for the ''Albemarle'' (1791), where two of the mutineers had been executed, but the Judge Advocate wrote a detailed account of the mutiny in his journal, which almost certainly means that he conducted some kind of investigation.<ref name="ftn77"> Collins, Vol.1, p.151.</ref> The same applies to the ''Sugar Cane'' (1792), where one of the many convicts out of irons had been executed.<ref name="ftn78"> Collins, Vol.1, p.261.</ref><br />
<br />
A number of papers have survived relating to events on the ''Surprize'' (1794). Shortly after their arrival in Sydney Cove, two of the Scottish Martyrs submitted a petition to the Governor, insisting that Captain Campbell had obtained confessions and testimonies through promises, bribes, threats and torture, and proposing that criminal charges be instituted against him. Campbell provided the Governor with a contemporaneous account of the events on board the ship, and the evidence that had been collected throughout the course of his inquiries, seeking the prosecution and punishment of two of the Martyrs and their followers.<br />
<br />
There is no record of these matters in the journal of the Judge Advocate, and the Acting Governor, Francis Grose, and Governor Hunter (when he arrived) seem to have dealt with the matter themselves, refusing to take any action against either side.<ref name="ftn79"> ‘A Conspiracy. Declaration of Joseph Draper & Others v Tho<sup>s</sup> Palmer, W<sup>m</sup> Skirving and Other Conspirators, 1794. For His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales’, SANSW 5/1156; HRNSW Vol.2, pp.862-873, 879-882.</ref> One of the Martyrs later published a self-serving account, and historians have been inclined to accept their version of events, but we are no better equipped to ascertain the truth today than Governor Hunter was in 1794.<ref name="ftn80"> Thomas Fyshe Palmer, ''A Narrative of the Sufferings of T.F. Palmer and W. Skirving during a Voyage to New South Wales'', 1794, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed., Cambridge, 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
''Formal Judicial Inquiries:'' The first detailed transcript of a judicial inquiry relates to the flogging of convicts on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795). Captain Hogan lodged a formal ‘protest’ concerning the mutiny shortly after arrival, but the formal investigation was initiated as the result of a written complaint by the corporal of the guard who had been confined for his supposed part in the conspiracy. He accused Hogan of ‘inhumane treatment’ and false imprisonment. The inquiry was chaired by the Judge Advocate, David Collins, assisted by the Acting Colonial Surgeon, William Balmain, in their capacity as Justices of the Peace.<br />
<br />
Balmain conducted some kind of preliminary investigation, collecting statements in the form of affidavits, and the hearing itself seems to have lasted for a single day. Collins and Balmain reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
We beg leave to lay before you the accompanying depositions and papers, from a careful examination of which we have no difficulty in saying we think Mr Hogan, situated as he found himself with a dangerous conspiracy in his ship on the point of breaking out and headed by some of the most daring and desperate offenders that the jails of Ireland could produce, could scarcely have acted otherwise than he did, and we are of opinion that nothing but the steps he took ensured the safety of the ship and the preservation of the lives of all on board.<ref name="ftn81"> ‘Proceedings on Board the Ship ''Marquis Cornwallis'': In the Matter of Capt. Hogan’s Treatment of the Convicts’, SANSW SZ765, Photocopy COD 17 pp.387-398; TNA CO201/13/154-160a; ‘Conspiracy to Seize the ''Marquis Cornwallis''’, HRNSW Vol.3, pp.102-111.</ref><br />
<br />
Another inquiry was conducted the following year by three justices of the peace into the floggings on the ''Britannia'' (1796). Once again, there was some form of preliminary investigation to marshal the evidence, and testimony was heard over five days. The magistrates reported to the Governor:<br />
<br />
After maturely considering the Evidence on both sides that has been brought before us on this Occasion, We are unanimously of Opinion that Captain Dennett’s Conduct in punishing the convicts in the manner he did for conspiring to take the Ship was imprudent and ill-judged, in as much as he did not take the sense of the Officers and Ship’s Company, individually, as to the steps necessary to be adopted for the preservation of the Ship and the lives of the People therein, for altho’ they might have been all present, and many of them assisting on that occasion, yet their not having been formally consulted renders it questionable whether the Captain’s proceedings would have met their unanimous approbation, and so far his Conduct in this instance may be regarded as bordering on too great a degree of severity. But we also clearly concur of Opinion that the Surgeon (Mr Byers) was beyond all the other Bystanders particularly culpable in not stedfastly protesting against the Cruelties which he charges Captain Dennett with and was therefore inexcusably negligent and indifferent in the performance of his duty, and consequently in an eminent degree, accessory to the inhumanities he complains of, such is our Opinion of the first charge. . .<br />
<br />
Since this was an administrative process, they also recommended reform of the transportation system:<br />
<br />
Before we conclude, we here beg leave to offer to his Excellency our Opinion that all Ships coming to this port with Transports should have on board an Officer of the Crown, who should be invested with proper power and authority, as well for the conducting of the Ship as the particular inspection and direction of the management of the Convicts on Board.<ref name="ftn82"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/52; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277.</ref><br />
<br />
''Court of Vice Admiralty:'' The only trial in the Court of Vice Admiralty in this period involved the prosecution of Captain Luckyn Betts of the ''Hercules'' (1801) for the unlawful deaths of 13 convicts in the court of the mutiny, and the deliberate execution of Jeremiah Prendergass, one of the ringleaders, shortly after the insurrection had been suppressed. Evidence was heard over two days, and as previously noted, Betts was found guilty of manslaughter:<br />
<br />
The Court after mature deliberation are satisfied that a mutiny actually existed on board the ship Hercules of which the prisoner Luckyn Betts was Master, do therefore acquit him of the first Count in the Indictment but find him guilty of Manslaughter on the Second And do Sentence him to pay a Fine of £500 to be appropriated to the Orphan Fund of this Colony, and that the said Luckyn Betts be imprisoned until the said Fine of £500 be paid.<ref name="ftn83"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/244-254 at p.254; ‘The Trial of Captain Betts’, HRNSW Vol.4, pp.810-818 at p.818. </ref><br />
<br />
The prosecution was based on the evidence of the senior military officer on board, supported by his subordinates, and Betts’ account was corroborated by the ship’s officers. There seems little doubt that at the time, the military officers had supported Prendergass’s execution, which may account for the finding of manslaughter rather than murder.<br />
<br />
This was probably the most serious convict mutiny in the history of the Australian transportation system, and the court showed little interest in the deaths which occurred in the process of suppressing it, in spite of evidence indicating that some of these occurred in remote corners of the ship in the final stages of the insurrection.<br />
<br />
The court was most concerned to establish the circumstances surrounding Prenderass’ death, and focused on the time which had elapsed since the retaking of the quarterdeck and the failure of Betts to hold a ship’s council. The defence witnesses insisted that the safety of the ship had not yet been secured, and Betts sought to defend his actions by describing his emotional state at the time:<br />
<br />
A Blunderbuss had been Snapt at my Head the Consequence of which the Head of Providence had averted. I had just heard the solemn declaration of a dying man, who was reproaching Prendergass for being the Sole Author of the Mutiny. Prendergass had but a little time before been detected with an Adze in his Hand Attempting the Life of one of the Seamen. . . the deck was Strewed with dead Bodies, the Confusion was great, the Agitation of my Mind was more than Language can describe, and perhaps, unless You, Gentlemen, can for a Moment conceive Yourselves in my Situation, it will be impossible for you to have any thing like and adequate Idea of it.<ref name="ftn84"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court held at Sydney the 6<sup>th</sup> day of July 1802. . .’, TNA CO201/21/249-250.</ref><br />
<br />
Again, this may help to explain why the finding was not murder. Governor King suspended the sentence, and deferred to the authority of the Home Secretary, however the ultimate outcome of the matter is not clear. The Transport Board did not consider that he had breached his contractual obligations.<ref name="ftn85"> Transport Board to King, 14 November 1803, ''Historical Records of Australia'', Series 1, Sydney: Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1914 (hereafter HRA) Series 1, Vol.4, p.425.</ref> <br />
<br />
''Prosecution of Mutineers:'' There was little interest in pursuing the mutineers once they had arrived in New South Wales. Given the violence of some of the insurrections, and the seriousness with which mutiny was regarded in British courts, this comes as a surprise. None of the convicts who were involved in the mutinies on the ''Albemarle'' (1791) and the ''Hercules'' (1801), the most violent of the uprisings, were tried upon their arrival in New South Wales. Some of the supposed conspirators on the ''Barwell'' (1797) were tried and acquitted.<ref name="ftn86"> HRNSW Vol.3, pp.467; TNA HCA1/64.</ref> Five of the seamen on the ''Hercules'' (1801) were charged ‘with force and arms upon the High Seas of piratically feloniously and wickedly combining to stir up bring about and make revolt and mutiny and did contribute to seize the ship and murder the officers and passengers’, but the evidence was not strong and the prosecutions were abandoned after the first of the men were acquitted.<ref name="ftn87"> ‘Proceedings of a Vice Admiralty Court. . .’, 14 July 1802, TNA CO201/21/255-257.</ref><br />
<br />
British courts were reluctant to revisit the decisions made by ships’ captains a thousand miles away, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. They were often faced with widely differing accounts of what happened by parties who had developed deep suspicion, and in some cases, loathing, for one another in the course of the voyage. Criticism tended to focus on procedural matters – the time elapsed since the security of the ship was restored, and whether the captain had consulted with his officers.<br />
<br />
But unlike wagons trains on the Overland Trail, convict transports were governed by law, and it is clear that ships’ captains moderated their behaviour out of a concern at possible criminal prosecution and, in the case of well-connected gentlemen convicts, potential scrutiny by the press.<br />
<br />
= 8. Too Great a Degree of Severity? =<br />
== 8.1 Kindness and Humanity ==<br />
In some cases, however, we encounter captains who sailed from England with the expressed hope of not needing to punish any of the convicts in the course of the voyage. This seems to have been the case on the'' Minerva (1799) ''where, after they had received allegations of yet another conspiracy, Surgeon Price wrote:<br />
<br />
We have had very great hopes, and indeed wished very much, that in no instance during the voyage. . . we should have occasion to punish any of these too unfortunate men, but their hopes were frustrated, and our wishes proved abortive.<ref name="ftn88"> Pamela Jeanne Fulton (ed.), ''The Minerva Journal of John Washington Price'', Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000, p.88.</ref><br />
<br />
The master of the'' Friendship (1799)'', Hugh Reid, took his wife with him on the voyage, and prior to sailing from Ireland, she noted in her journal that:<br />
<br />
Captain Reid thought that it would be possible to take the prisoners to the place of their destination without having an occasion intervene for inflicting on them punishment; or any severity beyond that of attending to their safe custody. . .<ref name="ftn89"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', September 1819, pp.238-239.</ref><br />
<br />
Reid had been Chief Mate on the ''Marquis Cornwallis'', and when he and his wife dined with his former master, Michael Hogan, at the Cape, he reported that the prisoners had behaved very well, and that ‘they had put it out of his power or that of his officers to lay a finger on them: and that he was in hopes of landing them at the place of their destination without introducing the machinery of punishment’. Hogan – who was clearly more comfortable with using the lash if it was required – was surprised.<ref name="ftn90"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal'', November 1819, p.455.</ref><br />
<br />
On their return to England, Mrs Reid wrote that her husband received letters from relatives of the convicts they had carried out:<br />
<br />
It was particularly gratifying to my husband to receive letters from the friends of those poor men whom embarked from Ireland, expressive of their sincere thanks for the great kindness and humanity shewn to them on the passage, and observing that they had mentioned that the only hardship they experienced was the necessary confinement, which the laws of their country and the safety of the ship required.<ref name="ftn91"> Mary Anne Reid, ‘Cursory Remarks on Board the Friendship’'', Asiatic Journal, ''December 1820, p.577.</ref><br />
<br />
What is significant is not so much that the convicts’ relatives sent these letters, but that Hugh and Mary Ann Reid were grateful to have received them. This was how Captain Reid wanted to be known.<br />
<br />
A great deal of nonsense has been written about the transportation system, but in general, convicts on a voyage to the Antipodes were treated well. When the women of the ''Lady Juliana'' (1789) asked the ship’s surgeon if they could substitute tea and sugar for some of their daily serving of salted meat, he made a recommendation to the contractor, who passed it on to the Navy Board with his warm support. From that time forward, all female convicts on Botany Bay ships were issued with a ration of tea and sugar throughout the voyage. And when it was realised that a number of the women were pregnant, the government organised a supply of linen, which Richards arranged to have made up. On their lying-in, convict women were supplied not only with clouts and pilchers for their newborn children, but bedgowns and nightcaps for themselves. This is a very different account of the transportation system than the lurid tales that amateur and family historians like to tell.<br />
<br />
Of course, the living conditions in a convict prison could be deeply unpleasant, particularly when prisoners were sent on board with typhus and/or the ship encountered high seas and stormy weather, but those were circumstances beyond the control of the ships’ officers.<br />
<br />
== 8.2 An Intrinsically Pathological Situation ==<br />
There is one ship, however, where the level of violence used in response to the conspiracy indicates that a deeply pathological situation had developed. The atmosphere on board the ''Britannia'' (1796) was tense from the outset – shortly before she sailed from Cork, there had been an attempted mutiny on one of the convict ships, although the details are few, and it is unclear which vessel was involved.<ref name="ftn92"> ''London Chronicle'', 13 September 1796; ''Edinburgh Advertiser'', 16 September 1796, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
A significant number of the men had been associated with a revolutionary movement known as the Defenders, which relied on the administration of oaths to maintain secrecy. Some of these men had participated in a violent battle with the Irish Militia in May of the previous year, and thus were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence. Others had been involved in lynch mobs and conspired to assassinate public officials.<ref name="ftn93"> Barbara Hall, ''Death or Liberty: The Convicts of the Britannia, Ireland to Botany Bay, 1797'' (hereafter Hall), Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2006.</ref><br />
<br />
Nor were the ship’s officers reassured by the soldiers who had been sent on board. Several of them had come directly from the Savoy prison, four had run from the ship at Cork, they were insolent and one had threatened the cook with a knife. They had proved unreliable as sentries, one falling asleep on watch, and another getting drunk with the seamen.<ref name="ftn94"> Hall, pp.237, 239; Journal of the ''Britannia'', IOR L/MAR/B/285XX, 8 & 14 November, 23 December 1796, 2 January 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
When Captain Dennett inquired of the resident agent at Cork whether the government had any instructions as to how to deal with such an unruly shipload of prisoners, he was told that there were none. He was to act as circumstances might require. Dennett later explained:<br />
<br />
Left then alone in a situation entirely new, I was determined if the conduct of those committed to my charge would but permit to make them as comfortable as it was possible, but at the same time if they behaved ill to have them punished in such a manner as to deter others from being guilty of similar offences. I have always been of opinion that severity in some instances is lenity in general.<ref name="ftn95"> ‘Captain Dennott’s Address to the Court’, 21 June 1797, HRNSW Vol.3, p.275</ref><br />
<br />
Upon their arrival at Rio de Janeiro, the convicts were transferred to an island in the harbour for the sake of their health. While the details are scant, it is evident that several of the convicts attempted an escape, attacking the guard and trying to steal their muskets.<ref name="ftn96"> TNA CO201/14/42a, 43, 47a & HRNSW Vol.3, p.257, 258, 266; Journal of the ''Britannia'', 17, 21 & 22 February 1797, and evidence attributed to Kit Hughes on 25 March 1797.</ref><br />
<br />
Several days after sailing from port, one of the men who had been liberated because of good behaviour, came aft and advised the captain that the convicts in the fore prison had been administering oaths and were plotting to take the ship. Having had the story confirmed by a second prisoner, Dennett set about flogging the conspirators to make them confess – six men were given 300 lashes each in the course of the afternoon, and after some resistance, they implicated others. At the end of the day, the fore prison was thoroughly searched and a large number of cutting implements were uncovered – knives, saws, scissors, spike nails, staples and iron hoops. There was no question that an attack was being planned.<br />
<br />
Dennett now set about punishing men for their involvement in this conspiracy and in the attempted escapes at Rio de Janeiro. The second day began with the flogging of two men who had been given 300 lashes the day before. They were given another 500 each. When the cat ceased to open their skin, Dennett had the boatswain make up another. By the time that day was over, another 5,700 lashes had been administered to 20 men, and another 1,575 were given the following day. In all, more than 8,000 lashes administered to 31 men over the course of two and a half days.<br />
<br />
One can imagine what it must have been like in the prison of the ''Britannia'', listening to the sounds emanating from the deck above. On the third day of flogging, one of the convict women threw herself overboard. She was already suffering from mental illness, but her suicide was a reaction to the events of the previous days. One of the soldiers followed her the next day, ‘out of a fit of insanity’. Both of the men who had been given 800 lashes died in the weeks that followed, and three more besides. When the ''Britannia'' arrived in Sydney Cove two months later, several of the prisoners had to be sent to hospital, including one man who had been given 700 lashes.<ref name="ftn97"> ‘Proceedings of a Bench of Magistrates held at Sydney ye 7<sup>th</sup> June &c 1797’, TNA CO201/14/31ff; ‘The Case of the Convict Vessel the ''Britannia’'', HRNSW Vol.3, pp.240-277; HRA Series 1, Vol.2, pp.33-68; Papers re Deaths on Board, SANSW 5/1156, or Copy at COD 261.</ref><br />
<br />
As previously noted, a judicial inquiry was established into the events on board the ''Britannia'', which concluded that the captain’s behaviour was ‘bordering on too great a degree of severity’. It also found that the surgeon superintendent, the government’s agent on board the ship, was ‘particularly culpable in not steadfastly protesting against the Cruelties’ practised by Captain Dennett.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the Stanford Experiment (1973), we understand much better what happened on the ''Britannia''. In reflecting on their experiment at the time, Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney wrote that the anti-social behaviour of the students who had acted as guards ‘were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals’.<ref name="ftn98"> C. Haney, W. Banks and P. Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'', (1973) 1, pp.69-97, at p.90.</ref> The sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib in 2003 reminds that these lessons have still not been learned.<br />
<br />
Zimbardo and Haney have argued that to a significant extent, this behaviour is situational: ‘the ‘psychologic’ of the environment was more powerful than the benign intentions or predispositions of the participants.’ No doubt this explains some of what happened on the ''Britannia'' in 1797.<br />
<br />
But others have pointed to role that dehumanisation plays in the abuse prisoners and prisoners of war, the systematic devaluation of human attributes in outgroups.<ref name="ftn99"> See, for example, G. Tendayi Viki, Daniel Osgood and Sabine Phillips, ‘Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war’, ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', (2013) 49, pp.325-328.</ref> There may also have been some of this in the reaction to the conspiracy on the ''Britannia'' in the middle of the South Atlantic on the 23<sup>rd</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> and 25<sup>th</sup> of March 1797. Among the ships’ officers and the public authorities in New South Wales, there was not a great deal of respect for the Irish and there was significant fear of political rebels such as the Defenders. In writing of the conspiracy on the ''Boddington'' (1793), the Judge Advocate, David Collins referred to ‘the wild lawless Irish’, and in reflecting on the events on board the ''Marquis Cornwallis'' (1795), he wrote:<br />
<br />
It appeared that the men were for the most part of the description of people termed Defenders, desperate, and ripe for any scheme from which danger and destruction were likely to ensue. The women were of the same complexion; and their ingenuity and cruelty were displayed in the part they were to take in the purposed insurrection, which was the preparing of pulverised glass to mix with the flour of which the seamen were to make their puddings. What an importation!<ref name="ftn100"> Collins, Vol.1, pp.262, 380-381.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor Hunter wrote to the Home Secretary of ‘such horrid characters as the people called Irish Defenders, who. . . I wish had been either sent to the coast of Africa or some place as fit for them’.<ref name="ftn101"> Hunter to Portland, 12 November 1796, TNA CO201/13//218a.</ref><br />
<br />
Governor King referred to the ‘mutinous Irish’ on the ''Hercules''.<ref name="ftn102"> King to Hobart, 9 May 1803, HRA Series 1, Vol.4, p.85.</ref> And a newspaper report in Sydney concerning one of the men who arrived on that ship claimed that ‘he was well known in Ireland during the rebellion for his abominable depravities. . .’<ref name="ftn103"> ''Sydney Gazette'', 19 January 1806, p.1.</ref><br />
<br />
What is striking, however, about the responses to the mutinies and conspiracies on board convict ships in the early years of the transportation system, is how rare such an abusive response was.<br />
<br />
= 9. Conclusion =<br />
No doubt there were false alarms, but one in four convict transports carrying men in the period 1787 to 1801 experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, and if we include the mutinies on the hulks and the smaller vessels which carried convicts to the port of embarkation, then the ships’ officers did need to exercise great care in the management of the male convicts, particularly where Irish political prisoners were concerned. As the tragic fate of the captain and the chief mate on the ''Lady Shore'' demonstrated, there was a high cost to pay when the authorities under-estimated the prospects of an uprising.<br />
<br />
Hunter was right to say that fears of insurrection sometimes excused ‘the enforcement of too great a degree of severity in the discipline’, but these occasions were rare. In general, the punishment of convicts in the passage to New South Wales was moderate, even when violent mutinies were concerned, and in several cases, we encounter masters who dreamed of carrying the prisoners to their destination without the need to punish a single one.<br />
<br />
While the courts were reluctant to second-guess events which took place some thousands of miles away at sea, there is evidence that the prospect of subsequent scrutiny served to moderate the response to an insurrection. The situation of a convict on board a transport bound for the Antipodes was very different from that of a slave bound for the Americas, or an emigrant on the Overland Trail.<br />
<br />
When mutinies did occur, the ships’ officers were quite willing to execute one of the ringleaders to ensure the safety of the ship, or to flog a number of the conspirators. But with only two exceptions, they paused to seek counsel from the ships’ officers, military officers, and free passengers, and there is only one occasion on which the conspiracy became ‘a convenient cloak for cruelty’.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[Category:Mutinies]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies&diff=575Mutinies2016-07-06T09:59:38Z<p>Admin: Redirected page to Category:Mutinies</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Category:Mutinies]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Category:Mutinies&diff=574Category:Mutinies2016-07-06T09:59:19Z<p>Admin: Created page with "There was only ever one successful mutiny on a convict transport - the 'Lady Shore' (1797) - and that was an uprising by the soldiers, rather than the convicts. But mutiny was..."</p>
<hr />
<div>There was only ever one successful mutiny on a convict transport - the 'Lady Shore' (1797) - and that was an uprising by the soldiers, rather than the convicts. But mutiny was a constant concern on ships which carried male convicts, particularly when they were carrying Irish political prisoners who were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence.<br />
<br />
While some historians have been inclined to under-estimate the risk of mutiny, more than one in four of the ships carrying male convicts in the first 15 years of the Australian transportation system, experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, where the plans were well advanced.<br />
<br />
This section brings together the available information on the five mutinies, six conspiracies and eight alleged conspiracies in the years 1787 to 1801.<br />
<br />
- Gary Sturgess, 5 July 2016</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies&diff=573Mutinies2016-07-05T08:18:24Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
There was only ever one successful mutiny on a convict transport - the 'Lady Shore' (1797) - and that was an uprising by the soldiers, rather than the convicts. But mutiny was a constant concern on ships which carried male convicts, particularly when they were carrying Irish political prisoners who were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence.<br />
<br />
While some historians have been inclined to under-estimate the risk of mutiny, more than one in four of the ships carrying male convicts in the first 15 years of the Australian transportation system, experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, where the plans were well advanced.<br />
<br />
This section brings together the available information on the five mutinies, six conspiracies and eight alleged conspiracies in the years 1787 to 1801.<br />
<br />
- Gary Sturgess, 5 July 2016</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Mutinies&diff=572Mutinies2016-07-05T08:18:05Z<p>Admin: Created page with " There was only ever one successful mutiny on a convict transport - the 'Lady Shore' (1797) -and that was an uprising by the soldiers, rather than the convicts. But mutiny was..."</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
There was only ever one successful mutiny on a convict transport - the 'Lady Shore' (1797) -and that was an uprising by the soldiers, rather than the convicts. But mutiny was a constant concern on ships which carried male convicts, particularly when they were carrying Irish political prisoners who were familiar with the exercise of extreme violence.<br />
<br />
While some historians have been inclined to under-estimate the risk of mutiny, more than one in four of the ships carrying male convicts in the first 15 years of the Australian transportation system, experienced a mutiny or an actual conspiracy, where the plans were well advanced.<br />
<br />
This section brings together the available information on the five mutinies, six conspiracies and eight alleged conspiracies in the years 1787 to 1801.<br />
<br />
- Gary Sturgess, 5 July 2016</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=571Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-05T08:11:23Z<p>Admin: /* Contents */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Provisions for the First Fleet]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| [[Mutinies]]<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Provisions_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=570Provisions for the First Fleet2016-07-05T08:03:53Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Quality of the Sea Provisions'''<br />
<br />
It has long been recognised that William Richards, the contractor for the First Fleet, did an excellent job of procuring sea provisions for the voyage. The fact that it was specifically mentioned by four of the civil and military officers who accompanied the voyage indicates that they were much better than what these men had usually encountered.<br />
<br />
The Judge Advocate, David Collins, wrote: ". . .the high health which was apparent in every countenance was to be attributed not only to the refreshments we met with at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape of Good Hope, but to the excellent quality of the provisions with which we were supplied by Mr Richards, Junior, the contractor. . .' (David Collins, 'An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales' [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975, Volume 1, pp.2-3)<br />
<br />
In his private journal, Lieutenant Philip Gidley King observed: "I believe every person in the Fleet were fully sensible of this advantage which cannot fail of doing credit to the contractor, Mr Richards, who contracted with government to furnish the provisions etc for the marines and convicts from England to Botany Bay." (Philip Gidley King, ‘Private Journal, 1786-1792’, 2 Volumes, State Library of NSW, Safe 1/16, 20 January 1788, pp.122-123)<br />
<br />
Marine Captain-Lieutenant Watkin Tench wrote in his journal, intended for immediate publication in England: "I beg leave, however, to say, that the provisions served on board were good, and of a much superior quality to those usually supplied by contract: they were furnished by Messrs Richards and Thorn of Tower Street, London". (Watkin Tench, ‘A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay’, London: J. Debrett, 1789, p.47. The third edition was published as Watkin Tench, 'Sydney’s First Four Years' [1793], Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1979, and in that version, the last sentence of this passage (at p.32), reads, ‘Mr Richards, Junior, of Walworth, Surrey’. William Richards had sought and obtained a correction.) <br />
<br />
And while he did not mention William Richards, Arthur Bowes-Smyth, the surgeon of the Lady Penrhyn, also commented on the quality of the provisions: "The provisions for the convicts were also very good of their kind, the beef & pork in particular were excellent. . . I believe few marines or soldiers going out on a foreign service under government were ever better, if so well provided for as these convicts are." (Arthur Bowes Smyth, The Journal of Arthur Bowes Smyth: Surgeon, Lady Perhryn, 1787-1789, Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1979, 10 December 1787, p.47)<br />
<br />
'''Obtaining Good Quality Provisions'''<br />
<br />
It was not by accident that William Richards had obtained such high quality provisions for the voyage. We now know that he deliberately sought out the best in London - merchants who not only supplied high quality provisions, but packaged them well so that they were still edible when they were opened many months later.<br />
<br />
For reasons that will be explained below, it is probable that Richards obtained the 'bread' (or sea biscuit) for the First Fleet from the firm of Seale & Walters, a firm of biscuit bakers located at 202 New Crane, at Wapping, on the waterfront to the immediate east of the city. On his voyage to the north-west coast of America in 1785, Nathaniel Portlock carried biscuits baked and packed by this firm, and he noted that when a cask was opened on their return to the Thames three and a half years later, the biscuit was as fresh as when it was packed. (Nathaniel Portlock, 'A Voyage Around the World. . . in 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788', London: John Stockdale, 1789, p.381)<br />
<br />
One of the partners in this firm, Thomas Walters, was a major creditor of William Richards on the First Fleet, and on the voyages of the 'Boddington' and 'Sugar Cane' in 1793, and it seems probable that it was from this firm that Richards purchased the sea biscuit for his voyages. Walters was also one of the underwriters of the freight of the 'Sugar Cane'. (Order of the Lord Chancellor, ‘In the Matter of William Richards the Younger, a Bankrupt’, 8 April 1794, Public Record Office, TNA B1/89, p.160; Walters v Richards, Court of Chancery, 26 November 1795, TNA C12/469/80)<br />
<br />
Historians have come to assume that 'creeping biscuit' was unavoidable on long ocean voyages of the 18th century. The experience of Nathaniel Portlock and Australia's First Fleet demonstrates that if those responsible for procurement did their jobs well, and sought out high quality bakers who made sure to package their produce well, this need not be the case.<br />
<br />
- Gary Sturgess, 5 July 2016<br />
<br />
[[Category: First Fleet]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Provisions_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=569Provisions for the First Fleet2016-07-05T08:03:17Z<p>Admin: Created page with " '''Quality of the Sea Provisions''' It has long been recognised that William Richards, the contractor for the First Fleet, did an excellent job of procuring sea provisions f..."</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Quality of the Sea Provisions'''<br />
<br />
It has long been recognised that William Richards, the contractor for the First Fleet, did an excellent job of procuring sea provisions for the voyage. The fact that it was specifically mentioned by ?? of the civil and military officers who accompanied the voyage indicates that they were much better than what these men had usually encountered.<br />
<br />
The Judge Advocate, David Collins, wrote: ". . .the high health which was apparent in every countenance was to be attributed not only to the refreshments we met with at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape of Good Hope, but to the excellent quality of the provisions with which we were supplied by Mr Richards, Junior, the contractor. . .' (David Collins, 'An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales' [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975, Volume 1, pp.2-3)<br />
<br />
In his private journal, Lieutenant Philip Gidley King observed: "I believe every person in the Fleet were fully sensible of this advantage which cannot fail of doing credit to the contractor, Mr Richards, who contracted with government to furnish the provisions etc for the marines and convicts from England to Botany Bay." (Philip Gidley King, ‘Private Journal, 1786-1792’, 2 Volumes, State Library of NSW, Safe 1/16, 20 January 1788, pp.122-123)<br />
<br />
Marine Captain-Lieutenant Watkin Tench wrote in his journal, intended for immediate publication in England: "I beg leave, however, to say, that the provisions served on board were good, and of a much superior quality to those usually supplied by contract: they were furnished by Messrs Richards and Thorn of Tower Street, London". (Watkin Tench, ‘A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay’, London: J. Debrett, 1789, p.47. The third edition was published as Watkin Tench, 'Sydney’s First Four Years' [1793], Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1979, and in that version, the last sentence of this passage (at p.32), reads, ‘Mr Richards, Junior, of Walworth, Surrey’. William Richards had sought and obtained a correction.) <br />
<br />
And while he did not mention William Richards, Arthur Bowes-Smyth, the surgeon of the Lady Penrhyn, also commented on the quality of the provisions: "The provisions for the convicts were also very good of their kind, the beef & pork in particular were excellent. . . I believe few marines or soldiers going out on a foreign service under government were ever better, if so well provided for as these convicts are." (Arthur Bowes Smyth, The Journal of Arthur Bowes Smyth: Surgeon, Lady Perhryn, 1787-1789, Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1979, 10 December 1787, p.47)<br />
<br />
'''Obtaining Good Quality Provisions'''<br />
<br />
It was not by accident that William Richards had obtained such high quality provisions for the voyage. We now know that he deliberately sought out the best in London - merchants who not only supplied high quality provisions, but packaged them well so that they were still edible when they were opened many months later.<br />
<br />
For reasons that will be explained below, it is probable that Richards obtained the 'bread' (or sea biscuit) for the First Fleet from the firm of Seale & Walters, a firm of biscuit bakers located at 202 New Crane, at Wapping, on the waterfront to the immediate east of the city. On his voyage to the north-west coast of America in 1785, Nathaniel Portlock carried biscuits baked and packed by this firm, and he noted that when a cask was opened on their return to the Thames three and a half years later, the biscuit was as fresh as when it was packed. (Nathaniel Portlock, 'A Voyage Around the World. . . in 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788', London: John Stockdale, 1789, p.381)<br />
<br />
One of the partners in this firm, Thomas Walters, was a major creditor of William Richards on the First Fleet, and on the voyages of the 'Boddington' and 'Sugar Cane' in 1793, and it seems probable that it was from this firm that Richards purchased the sea biscuit for his voyages. Walters was also one of the underwriters of the freight of the 'Sugar Cane'. (Order of the Lord Chancellor, ‘In the Matter of William Richards the Younger, a Bankrupt’, 8 April 1794, Public Record Office, TNA B1/89, p.160; Walters v Richards, Court of Chancery, 26 November 1795, TNA C12/469/80)<br />
<br />
Historians have come to assume that 'creeping biscuit' was unavoidable on long ocean voyages of the 18th century. The experience of Nathaniel Portlock and Australia's First Fleet demonstrates that if those responsible for procurement did their jobs well, and sought out high quality bakers who made sure to package their produce well, this need not be the case.<br />
<br />
- Gary Sturgess, 5 July 2016<br />
<br />
[[Category: First Fleet]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=568Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-05T07:19:45Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Provisions for the First Fleet]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=567Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-04T10:01:53Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=A_Letter_of_Credit_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=566A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet2016-07-04T10:00:50Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Background'''<br />
<br />
In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of the ships which sailed with the First Fleet. The following is an analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
'''Text'''<br />
<br />
31 January 1787 – Letter from Cologan, Pollard & Cooper, London, to Messrs John Cologan & Sons, Teneriffe.<br />
<br />
"We beg have to introduce you the bearer Captain Mason of the Ship Prince of Wales which is expected to touch at your Island with a Fleet bound to New Holland, and as he may be in want of some supplies for the use of said Ship, such as Wine, live stock and we beg you will accommodate him therewith all in your Power taking his bill for the same on his owner here William Mathew Esquire and also serve Captain Mason in anything he may want in his own Account, whom we recommend to your Civilities during his stay at your place which will be estimed as shown to. . .<br />
<br />
Gentlemen,<br />
<br />
Your most obedient servant. . ." (Original in possession of the Cologan family in Teneriffe)<br />
<br />
'''1. Cologan, Pollard & Cooper'''<br />
<br />
The firm of Cologan, Pollard & Co is listed in the London directories at 24 Mark Lane from 1778 to 1780, and 20 Swithin’s Lane from 1781 to 1784. The firm was known as Cologan, Pollard & Cooper from 1785 to 1795, when Cologan withdrew, possibly because of ill-health. The principals were John Cologan, William Pollard and James Cooper.<br />
<br />
Cologan was part of an Irish family, with strong links to another branch of the family based in Tenerife, John Cologan & Sons. As a result, Cologan, Pollard & Cooper were actively involved in the wine trade. From 1794 (at the latest), they had contracts to supply naval vessels calling at the Canary Islands with wine.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the First Fleet became public news, the firm wrote to the Treasury, seeking to supply the convoy with wine at Santa Cruz:<br />
<br />
17 October 1786 – Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper to the Treasury, offering to supply Tenerife wine for the troops being sent to Botany Bay, delivered on board at Santa Cruz. (TNA T1/639, No.2498)<br />
<br />
26 October 1786 – Treasury read the letter of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Co, of 17 October, offering to supply Tenerife wine. (Cover of TNA T1/639/127)<br />
<br />
8 November 1786 – Steele (Treasury) to Navy Board. He had laid before their Lordships the proposal of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine, he was commanded by them to transmit the same to the Navy Board for their consideration and their opinion. There is a note on the reverse, instructing the officers to advise Steele that the orders they had received for providing rations and provisions for these men did not anywhere include wine or spirits. (TNA T27/38/391; NMM ADM/OT)<br />
<br />
13 November 1786 – Navy Board minute, in response to letter from Steele of the 8th instant, enclosing a proposal from Messrs Cologan, Pollard and Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine. Acquaint him that in the orders they had received for providing the rations of provisions for them, there was no mention of wine or spirits. (TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
- Navy Board to Steel, in response to his letter of the 8th, returning the proposal from Messrs Cologan Pollard & Cooper for the supply of wine for the troops going to Botany Bay. The orders don’t include wine or spirits. (T1/639, No.2618)<br />
<br />
17 November 1786 – Treasury read a letter from the Navy Board, which stated that in the orders concerning rations for troops going to Botany Bay, there was no mention of wine or spirits, and returning a proposal by Messrs Cologan Pollard & Co for supplying wine for that service. (TNA T29/58/95)<br />
<br />
'''2. The Ownership of the Prince of Wales'''<br />
<br />
In the registration of the ship in January 1787, the owner of the 'Prince of Wales' was listed as James Mather.<br />
<br />
15 January 1787 – The registration of the 'Prince of Wales' lists the owner as James Mather of Birchin Lane, Cornhill, merchant. (TNA BT107/8, No.17)<br />
<br />
However, it is known that a relative, William Mather, was closely involved with him at this time. Two days before this letter was written, William Mather gave evidence at the Old Bailey.<br />
<br />
29 January 1787 – John Mather was described in a court case as a wharfinger and shipowner of St Ann Middlesex (Limehouse). John Anderson was his overseer at the site. He was described as having a yard at Blackwall. William Mather gave evidence in that case. (R v Anderson and Gardiner, Old Bailey Trials)<br />
<br />
There appears to be a transcription error in the letter, with ‘Mather’ copied as ‘Mathew’.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that William Mather also had shares in the Prince of Wales.<br />
<br />
'''3. Letters of Credit'''<br />
<br />
The significance of the letter is that it indicates how the masters of the merchant ships in the First Fleet were able to obtain fresh provisions and other articles (such as wine) whilst in foreign ports.<br />
<br />
George Whitlock was the shipbroker for the Prince of Wales on the First Fleet, but interestingly, he was not used to obtain credit for the ship – presumably because the firm had better links through Cologan, Pollard & Cooper and other merchants. (Navy Board Minute, 28 December 1786, TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
The journal of the Prince of Wales opens on 30 December 1786 and she began taking in ballast on the following day. She sailed for Portsmouth on the 13th of February. (Log of the Prince of Wales, TNA ADM51/4376)<br />
<br />
The ship’s journal makes no mention of fresh provisions or wine having been taken on board at Tenerife, although the entries are brief. The entries while the ship was at Rio de Janeiro list fresh provisions for the marines and convicts, but again there is no mention of the arrangements for the crew.<br />
<br />
Mason would have carried similar letters of credit to merchants at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape.<br />
<br />
[[Category: First Fleet]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=A_Letter_of_Credit_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=565A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet2016-07-04T09:58:53Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Background'''<br />
<br />
In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of the ships which sailed with the First Fleet. The following is an analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
'''Text'''<br />
<br />
31 January 1787 – Letter from Cologan, Pollard & Cooper, London, to Messrs John Cologan & Sons, Teneriffe.<br />
<br />
"We beg have to introduce you the bearer Captain Mason of the Ship Prince of Wales which is expected to touch at your Island with a Fleet bound to New Holland, and as he may be in want of some supplies for the use of said Ship, such as Wine, live stock and we beg you will accommodate him therewith all in your Power taking his bill for the same on his owner here William Mathew Esquire and also serve Captain Mason in anything he may want in his own Account, whom we recommend to your Civilities during his stay at your place which will be estimed as shown to. . .<br />
<br />
Gentlemen,<br />
<br />
Your most obedient servant. . ." (Original in possession of the Cologan family in Teneriffe)<br />
<br />
'''1. Cologan, Pollard & Cooper'''<br />
<br />
The firm of Cologan, Pollard & Co is listed in the London directories at 24 Mark Lane from 1778 to 1780, and 20 Swithin’s Lane from 1781 to 1784. The firm was known as Cologan, Pollard & Cooper from 1785 to 1795, when Cologan withdrew, possibly because of ill-health. The principals were John Cologan, William Pollard and James Cooper.<br />
<br />
Cologan was part of an Irish family, with strong links to another branch of the family based in Tenerife, John Cologan & Sons. As a result, Cologan, Pollard & Cooper were actively involved in the wine trade. From 1794 (at the latest), they had contracts to supply naval vessels calling at the Canary Islands with wine.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the First Fleet became public news, the firm wrote to the Treasury, seeking to supply the convoy with wine at Santa Cruz:<br />
<br />
17 October 1786 – Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper to the Treasury, offering to supply Tenerife wine for the troops being sent to Botany Bay, delivered on board at Santa Cruz. (T1/639, No.2498)<br />
<br />
26 October 1786 – Treasury read the letter of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Co, of 17 October, offering to supply Tenerife wine. (Cover of T1/639/127)<br />
<br />
8 November 1786 – Steele (Treasury) to Navy Board. He had laid before their Lordships the proposal of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine, he was commanded by them to transmit the same to the Navy Board for their consideration and their opinion. There is a note on the reverse, instructing the officers to advise Steele that the orders they had received for providing rations and provisions for these men did not anywhere include wine or spirits. (T27/38/391; ADM/OT)<br />
<br />
13 November 1786 – Navy Board minute, in response to letter from Steele of the 8th instant, enclosing a proposal from Messrs Cologan, Pollard and Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine. Acquaint him that in the orders they had received for providing the rations of provisions for them, there was no mention of wine or spirits. (ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
- Navy Board to Steel, in response to his letter of the 8th, returning the proposal from Messrs Cologan Pollard & Cooper for the supply of wine for the troops going to Botany Bay. The orders don’t include wine or spirits. (T1/639, No.2618)<br />
<br />
17 November 1786 – Treasury read a letter from the Navy Board, which stated that in the orders concerning rations for troops going to Botany Bay, there was no mention of wine or spirits, and returning a proposal by Messrs Cologan Pollard & Co for supplying wine for that service. (T29/58/95)<br />
<br />
'''2. The Owner of the Prince of Wales'''<br />
<br />
In the registration of the ship in January 1787, the owner of the 'Prince of Wales' was listed as James Mather.<br />
<br />
15 January 1787 – The registration of the 'Prince of Wales' lists the owner as James Mather of Birchin Lane, Cornhill, merchant. (BT107/8, No.17)<br />
<br />
However, it is known that a relative, William Mather, was closely involved with him at this time. Two days before this letter was written, William Mather gave evidence at the Old Bailey.<br />
<br />
29 January 1787 – John Mather was described in a court case as a wharfinger and shipowner of St Ann Middlesex (Limehouse). John Anderson was his overseer at the site. He was described as having a yard at Blackwall. William Mather gave evidence in that case. (R v Anderson and Gardiner, Old Bailey Trials)<br />
<br />
There appears to be a transcription error in the letter, with ‘Mather’ copied as ‘Mathew’.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that William Mather also had shares in the Prince of Wales.<br />
<br />
'''3. Letters of Credit'''<br />
<br />
The significance of the letter is that it indicates how the masters of the merchant ships in the First Fleet were able to obtain fresh provisions and other articles (such as wine) whilst in foreign ports.<br />
<br />
George Whitlock was the shipbroker for the Prince of Wales on the First Fleet, but interestingly, he was not used to obtain credit for the ship – presumably because the firm had better links through Cologan, Pollard & Cooper and other merchants. (Navy Board Minute, 28 December 1786, TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
The journal of the Prince of Wales opens on 30 December 1786 and she began taking in ballast on the following day. She sailed for Portsmouth on the 13th of February. (Log of the Prince of Wales, TNA ADM51/4376)<br />
<br />
The ship’s journal makes no mention of fresh provisions or wine having been taken on board at Tenerife, although the entries are brief. The entries while the ship was at Rio de Janeiro list fresh provisions for the marines and convicts, but again there is no mention of the arrangements for the crew.<br />
<br />
Mason would have carried similar letters of credit to merchants at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape.<br />
<br />
[[Category: First Fleet]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=A_Letter_of_Credit_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=564A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet2016-07-04T09:57:59Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Background'''<br />
<br />
In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of the ships which sailed with the First Fleet. The following is an analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
'''Text'''<br />
<br />
31 January 1787 – Letter from Cologan, Pollard & Cooper, London, to Messrs John Cologan & Sons, Teneriffe.<br />
We beg have to introduce you the bearer Captain Mason of the Ship Prince of Wales which is expected to touch at your Island with a Fleet bound to New Holland, and as he may be in want of some supplies for the use of said Ship, such as Wine, live stock and we beg you will accommodate him therewith all in your Power taking his bill for the same on his owner here William Mathew Esquire and also serve Captain Mason in anything he may want in his own Account, whom we recommend to your Civilities during his stay at your place which will be estimed as shown to. . .<br />
Gentleman<br />
Your most obedient servant<br />
(Original in possession of the Cologan family in Teneriffe)<br />
<br />
'''1. Cologan, Pollard & Cooper'''<br />
<br />
The firm of Cologan, Pollard & Co is listed in the London directories at 24 Mark Lane from 1778 to 1780, and 20 Swithin’s Lane from 1781 to 1784. The firm was known as Cologan, Pollard & Cooper from 1785 to 1795, when Cologan withdrew, possibly because of ill-health. The principals were John Cologan, William Pollard and James Cooper.<br />
<br />
Cologan was part of an Irish family, with strong links to another branch of the family based in Tenerife, John Cologan & Sons. As a result, Cologan, Pollard & Cooper were actively involved in the wine trade. From 1794 (at the latest), they had contracts to supply naval vessels calling at the Canary Islands with wine.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the First Fleet became public news, the firm wrote to the Treasury, seeking to supply the convoy with wine at Santa Cruz:<br />
<br />
17 October 1786 – Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper to the Treasury, offering to supply Tenerife wine for the troops being sent to Botany Bay, delivered on board at Santa Cruz. (T1/639, No.2498)<br />
<br />
26 October 1786 – Treasury read the letter of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Co, of 17 October, offering to supply Tenerife wine. (Cover of T1/639/127)<br />
<br />
8 November 1786 – Steele (Treasury) to Navy Board. He had laid before their Lordships the proposal of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine, he was commanded by them to transmit the same to the Navy Board for their consideration and their opinion. There is a note on the reverse, instructing the officers to advise Steele that the orders they had received for providing rations and provisions for these men did not anywhere include wine or spirits. (T27/38/391; ADM/OT)<br />
<br />
13 November 1786 – Navy Board minute, in response to letter from Steele of the 8th instant, enclosing a proposal from Messrs Cologan, Pollard and Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine. Acquaint him that in the orders they had received for providing the rations of provisions for them, there was no mention of wine or spirits. (ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
- Navy Board to Steel, in response to his letter of the 8th, returning the proposal from Messrs Cologan Pollard & Cooper for the supply of wine for the troops going to Botany Bay. The orders don’t include wine or spirits. (T1/639, No.2618)<br />
<br />
17 November 1786 – Treasury read a letter from the Navy Board, which stated that in the orders concerning rations for troops going to Botany Bay, there was no mention of wine or spirits, and returning a proposal by Messrs Cologan Pollard & Co for supplying wine for that service. (T29/58/95)<br />
<br />
'''2. The Owner of the Prince of Wales'''<br />
<br />
In the registration of the ship in January 1787, the owner of the 'Prince of Wales' was listed as James Mather.<br />
<br />
15 January 1787 – The registration of the 'Prince of Wales' lists the owner as James Mather of Birchin Lane, Cornhill, merchant. (BT107/8, No.17)<br />
<br />
However, it is known that a relative, William Mather, was closely involved with him at this time. Two days before this letter was written, William Mather gave evidence at the Old Bailey.<br />
<br />
29 January 1787 – John Mather was described in a court case as a wharfinger and shipowner of St Ann Middlesex (Limehouse). John Anderson was his overseer at the site. He was described as having a yard at Blackwall. William Mather gave evidence in that case. (R v Anderson and Gardiner, Old Bailey Trials)<br />
<br />
There appears to be a transcription error in the letter, with ‘Mather’ copied as ‘Mathew’.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that William Mather also had shares in the Prince of Wales.<br />
<br />
'''3. Letters of Credit'''<br />
<br />
The significance of the letter is that it indicates how the masters of the merchant ships in the First Fleet were able to obtain fresh provisions and other articles (such as wine) whilst in foreign ports.<br />
<br />
George Whitlock was the shipbroker for the Prince of Wales on the First Fleet, but interestingly, he was not used to obtain credit for the ship – presumably because the firm had better links through Cologan, Pollard & Cooper and other merchants. (Navy Board Minute, 28 December 1786, TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
The journal of the Prince of Wales opens on 30 December 1786 and she began taking in ballast on the following day. She sailed for Portsmouth on the 13th of February. (Log of the Prince of Wales, TNA ADM51/4376)<br />
<br />
The ship’s journal makes no mention of fresh provisions or wine having been taken on board at Tenerife, although the entries are brief. The entries while the ship was at Rio de Janeiro list fresh provisions for the marines and convicts, but again there is no mention of the arrangements for the crew.<br />
<br />
Mason would have carried similar letters of credit to merchants at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape.<br />
<br />
[[Category: First Fleet]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=A_Letter_of_Credit_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=563A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet2016-07-04T09:56:32Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Background'''<br />
<br />
In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of the ships which sailed with the First Fleet. The following is an analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
"Text"<br />
<br />
31 January 1787 – Letter from Cologan, Pollard & Cooper, London, to Messrs John Cologan & Sons, Teneriffe.<br />
We beg have to introduce you the bearer Captain Mason of the Ship Prince of Wales which is expected to touch at your Island with a Fleet bound to New Holland, and as he may be in want of some supplies for the use of said Ship, such as Wine, live stock and we beg you will accommodate him therewith all in your Power taking his bill for the same on his owner here William Mathew Esquire and also serve Captain Mason in anything he may want in his own Account, whom we recommend to your Civilities during his stay at your place which will be estimed as shown to. . .<br />
Gentleman<br />
Your most obedient servant<br />
(Original in possession of the Cologan family in Teneriffe)<br />
<br />
"1. Cologan, Pollard & Cooper"<br />
<br />
The firm of Cologan, Pollard & Co is listed in the London directories at 24 Mark Lane from 1778 to 1780, and 20 Swithin’s Lane from 1781 to 1784. The firm was known as Cologan, Pollard & Cooper from 1785 to 1795, when Cologan withdrew, possibly because of ill-health. The principals were John Cologan, William Pollard and James Cooper.<br />
<br />
Cologan was part of an Irish family, with strong links to another branch of the family based in Tenerife, John Cologan & Sons. As a result, Cologan, Pollard & Cooper were actively involved in the wine trade. From 1794 (at the latest), they had contracts to supply naval vessels calling at the Canary Islands with wine.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the First Fleet became public news, the firm wrote to the Treasury, seeking to supply the convoy with wine at Santa Cruz:<br />
<br />
17 October 1786 – Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper to the Treasury, offering to supply Tenerife wine for the troops being sent to Botany Bay, delivered on board at Santa Cruz. (T1/639, No.2498)<br />
<br />
26 October 1786 – Treasury read the letter of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Co, of 17 October, offering to supply Tenerife wine. (Cover of T1/639/127)<br />
<br />
8 November 1786 – Steele (Treasury) to Navy Board. He had laid before their Lordships the proposal of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine, he was commanded by them to transmit the same to the Navy Board for their consideration and their opinion. There is a note on the reverse, instructing the officers to advise Steele that the orders they had received for providing rations and provisions for these men did not anywhere include wine or spirits. (T27/38/391; ADM/OT)<br />
<br />
13 November 1786 – Navy Board minute, in response to letter from Steele of the 8th instant, enclosing a proposal from Messrs Cologan, Pollard and Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine. Acquaint him that in the orders they had received for providing the rations of provisions for them, there was no mention of wine or spirits. (ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
- Navy Board to Steel, in response to his letter of the 8th, returning the proposal from Messrs Cologan Pollard & Cooper for the supply of wine for the troops going to Botany Bay. The orders don’t include wine or spirits. (T1/639, No.2618)<br />
<br />
17 November 1786 – Treasury read a letter from the Navy Board, which stated that in the orders concerning rations for troops going to Botany Bay, there was no mention of wine or spirits, and returning a proposal by Messrs Cologan Pollard & Co for supplying wine for that service. (T29/58/95)<br />
<br />
"2. The Owner of the Prince of Wales"<br />
<br />
In the registration of the ship in January 1787, the owner of the Prince of Wales was listed as James Mather.<br />
<br />
15 January 1787 – The registration of the Prince of Wales lists the owner as James Mather of Birchin Lane, Cornhill, merchant. (BT107/8, No.17)<br />
<br />
However, it is known that a relative, William Mather, was closely involved with him at this time. Two days before this letter was written, William Mather gave evidence at the Old Bailey.<br />
<br />
29 January 1787 – John Mather was described in a court case as a wharfinger and shipowner of St Ann Middlesex (Limehouse). John Anderson was his overseer at the site. He was described as having a yard at Blackwall. William Mather gave evidence in that case. (R v Anderson and Gardiner, Old Bailey Trials)<br />
<br />
There appears to be a transcription error in the letter, with ‘Mather’ copied as ‘Mathew’.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that William Mather also had shares in the Prince of Wales.<br />
<br />
"3. Letters of Credit"<br />
<br />
The significance of the letter is that it indicates how the masters of the merchant ships in the First Fleet were able to obtain fresh provisions and other articles (such as wine) whilst in foreign ports.<br />
<br />
George Whitlock was the shipbroker for the Prince of Wales on the First Fleet, but interestingly, he was not used to obtain credit for the ship – presumably because the firm had better links through Cologan, Pollard & Cooper and other merchants. (Navy Board Minute, 28 December 1786, TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
The journal of the Prince of Wales opens on 30 December 1786 and she began taking in ballast on the following day. She sailed for Portsmouth on the 13th of February. (Log of the Prince of Wales, TNA ADM51/4376)<br />
<br />
The ship’s journal makes no mention of fresh provisions or wine having been taken on board at Tenerife, although the entries are brief. The entries while the ship was at Rio de Janeiro list fresh provisions for the marines and convicts, but again there is no mention of the arrangements for the crew.<br />
<br />
Mason would have carried similar letters of credit to merchants at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape.<br />
<br />
end</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=A_Letter_of_Credit_for_the_First_Fleet&diff=562A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet2016-07-04T09:55:00Z<p>Admin: Created page with ""Background" In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of t..."</p>
<hr />
<div>"Background"<br />
<br />
In June 2016, a member of the Cologan family in Tenerife emailed the First Fleet Society the text of a letter of credit relating to the Prince of Wales, one of the ships which sailed with the First Fleet. The following is an analysis of the text.<br />
<br />
"Text"<br />
<br />
31 January 1787 – Letter from Cologan, Pollard & Cooper, London, to Messrs John Cologan & Sons, Teneriffe.<br />
We beg have to introduce you the bearer Captain Mason of the Ship Prince of Wales which is expected to touch at your Island with a Fleet bound to New Holland, and as he may be in want of some supplies for the use of said Ship, such as Wine, live stock and we beg you will accommodate him therewith all in your Power taking his bill for the same on his owner here William Mathew Esquire and also serve Captain Mason in anything he may want in his own Account, whom we recommend to your Civilities during his stay at your place which will be estimed as shown to. . .<br />
Gentleman<br />
Your most obedient servant<br />
(Original in possession of the Cologan family in Teneriffe)<br />
<br />
"1. Cologan, Pollard & Cooper"<br />
<br />
The firm of Cologan, Pollard & Co is listed in the London directories at 24 Mark Lane from 1778 to 1780, and 20 Swithin’s Lane from 1781 to 1784. The firm was known as Cologan, Pollard & Cooper from 1785 to 1795, when Cologan withdrew, possibly because of ill-health. The principals were John Cologan, William Pollard and James Cooper.<br />
<br />
Cologan was part of an Irish family, with strong links to another branch of the family based in Tenerife, John Cologan & Sons. As a result, Cologan, Pollard & Cooper were actively involved in the wine trade. From 1794 (at the latest), they had contracts to supply naval vessels calling at the Canary Islands with wine.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the First Fleet became public news, the firm wrote to the Treasury, seeking to supply the convoy with wine at Santa Cruz:<br />
<br />
17 October 1786 – Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper to the Treasury, offering to supply Tenerife wine for the troops being sent to Botany Bay, delivered on board at Santa Cruz. (T1/639, No.2498)<br />
<br />
26 October 1786 – Treasury read the letter of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Co, of 17 October, offering to supply Tenerife wine. (Cover of T1/639/127)<br />
<br />
8 November 1786 – Steele (Treasury) to Navy Board. He had laid before their Lordships the proposal of Messrs Cologan, Pollard & Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine, he was commanded by them to transmit the same to the Navy Board for their consideration and their opinion. There is a note on the reverse, instructing the officers to advise Steele that the orders they had received for providing rations and provisions for these men did not anywhere include wine or spirits. (T27/38/391; ADM/OT)<br />
<br />
13 November 1786 – Navy Board minute, in response to letter from Steele of the 8th instant, enclosing a proposal from Messrs Cologan, Pollard and Cooper for supplying the troops going to Botany Bay with wine. Acquaint him that in the orders they had received for providing the rations of provisions for them, there was no mention of wine or spirits. (ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
- Navy Board to Steel, in response to his letter of the 8th, returning the proposal from Messrs Cologan Pollard & Cooper for the supply of wine for the troops going to Botany Bay. The orders don’t include wine or spirits. (T1/639, No.2618)<br />
<br />
17 November 1786 – Treasury read a letter from the Navy Board, which stated that in the orders concerning rations for troops going to Botany Bay, there was no mention of wine or spirits, and returning a proposal by Messrs Cologan Pollard & Co for supplying wine for that service. (T29/58/95)<br />
<br />
"2. The Owner of the Prince of Wales"<br />
<br />
In the registration of the ship in January 1787, the owner of the Prince of Wales was listed as James Mather.<br />
<br />
15 January 1787 – The registration of the Prince of Wales lists the owner as James Mather of Birchin Lane, Cornhill, merchant. (BT107/8, No.17)<br />
<br />
However, it is known that a relative, William Mather, was closely involved with him at this time. Two days before this letter was written, William Mather gave evidence at the Old Bailey.<br />
<br />
29 January 1787 – John Mather was described in a court case as a wharfinger and shipowner of St Ann Middlesex (Limehouse). John Anderson was his overseer at the site. He was described as having a yard at Blackwall. William Mather gave evidence in that case. (R v Anderson and Gardiner, Old Bailey Trials)<br />
<br />
There appears to be a transcription error in the letter, with ‘Mather’ copied as ‘Mathew’.<br />
<br />
This seems to indicate that William Mather also had shares in the Prince of Wales.<br />
<br />
"3. Letters of Credit"<br />
<br />
The significance of the letter is that it indicates how the masters of the merchant ships in the First Fleet were able to obtain fresh provisions and other articles (such as wine) whilst in foreign ports.<br />
<br />
George Whitlock was the shipbroker for the Prince of Wales on the First Fleet, but interestingly, he was not used to obtain credit for the ship – presumably because the firm had better links through Cologan, Pollard & Cooper and other merchants. (Navy Board Minute, 28 December 1786, TNA ADM106/2622)<br />
<br />
The journal of the Prince of Wales opens on 30 December 1786 and she began taking in ballast on the following day. She sailed for Portsmouth on the 13th of February. (Log of the Prince of Wales, TNA ADM51/4376)<br />
<br />
The ship’s journal makes no mention of fresh provisions or wine having been taken on board at Tenerife, although the entries are brief. The entries while the ship was at Rio de Janeiro list fresh provisions for the marines and convicts, but again there is no mention of the arrangements for the crew.<br />
<br />
Mason would have carried similar letters of credit to merchants at Rio de Janeiro and the Cape.<br />
<br />
end</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=561Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-04T09:50:32Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[Botany Baymen]]<br />
* [[Letters of Marque]]<br />
* [[First Fleet]]<br />
* [[First Fleet & the Abolition Movement]]<br />
* [[A Letter of Credit for the First Fleet]]<br />
* [[Counterfeit Coins]]<br />
* [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
* [[Second Fleet]]<br />
* [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Irons]]<br />
* [[Trade in Services]]<br />
* [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
* [[Valuables]]<br />
* [[Seasickness]]<br />
* [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Rights]]<br />
* [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
* [[Diet Tables]]<br />
* [[Insurance]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Alexander and the Friendship to Batavia]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Charlotte and Scarborough to China]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Lady Penrhyn from Port Jackson to Macau]]<br />
* [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
* [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
* [[Commodore of the Fleet]]<br />
* [[William Matthews]]<br />
* [[Camden, Calvert & King - First Fleet]]<br />
* [[John Marshall's Journal]]<br />
* [[Naval Agents]]<br />
* [[George Teer]]<br />
* [[John Shortland]]<br />
* [[John Shapcote]]<br />
* [[Daniel Woodriff]]<br />
* [[Evan Nepean]]<br />
* [[Charles Middleton]]<br />
* [[Thomas Shelton]]<br />
* [[William Chinnery]]<br />
* [[Navy Board Staff]]<br />
* [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
* [[Ship Logs]]<br />
* [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=560Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-07-04T08:15:44Z<p>Admin: /* What I'm Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke, 'Merchants of Canton and Macao, Vol. 2: Success and Failure in Eighteenth Century Chinese Trade', Hong Kong University Press, 2016.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
This is the final book in a series which began with 'The Canton Trade' in 2005; the first volume of 'Merchants of Canton and Macao' was published in 2011, and for the most part dealt with Hong merchants who had retired, went bankrupt, or died by the 1780s. In this long-awaited volume, Van Dyke deals with give of the Hong families, and less well-known figures who played a significant role in the porcelain and silk trades. <br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable. <br />
<br />
In this volume, for example, Van Dyke provides detailed accounts of the only three Co-hong families that survived into the 1790s:<br />
<br />
That of Monqua, who acted as security merchant for the Surprize (1790), the Bellona (1793), the Indispensable (1794), and the Prince of Wales (1797).<br />
<br />
That of the Wu family, which included Geowqua, whose name was employed as security agent for the Charlotte (1788), the Scarborough (1790) and the Royal Admiral (1793), and his cousin, Puiqua, who was supposed to act for the Indispensable (1796), but seems not to have finally done so.<br />
<br />
And that of Poankeequa, who acted for the Justinian (1790), the Young William (1795) and the Britannia (1797).<br />
<br />
The detailed workings of the China trade were explained by Van Dyke in his earlier books, but this volume provides important detail on the decline of the porcelain trade, which had begun to lose its significance by 1788 when the first of the Botany Bay ships arrived. Some of the difficulties which the First Fleet ships experienced in finding suitable blue and white chinaware arose from the growing ambivalence among the directors of the East India Company, and the difficulty in providing the Chinese merchants with confidence in making advance orders.<br />
<br />
Whilst in London, I also collected a copy of Patrick Conner's 'The Hongs of Canton'. Conner is an art dealer in St James's who specialises in historical paintings related to the East India Company and the China trade. This was published in 2009, but it provides an excellent companion to Paul Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok's 'Images of the Canton Factories', just published and recently reviewed on this page.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 4 July 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[Botany Baymen]]<br />
* [[Letters of Marque]]<br />
* [[First Fleet]]<br />
* [[First Fleet & the Abolition Movement]]<br />
* [[Counterfeit Coins]]<br />
* [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
* [[Second Fleet]]<br />
* [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Irons]]<br />
* [[Trade in Services]]<br />
* [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
* [[Valuables]]<br />
* [[Seasickness]]<br />
* [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Rights]]<br />
* [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
* [[Diet Tables]]<br />
* [[Insurance]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Alexander and the Friendship to Batavia]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Charlotte and Scarborough to China]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Lady Penrhyn from Port Jackson to Macau]]<br />
* [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
* [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
* [[Commodore of the Fleet]]<br />
* [[William Matthews]]<br />
* [[Camden, Calvert & King - First Fleet]]<br />
* [[John Marshall's Journal]]<br />
* [[Naval Agents]]<br />
* [[George Teer]]<br />
* [[John Shortland]]<br />
* [[John Shapcote]]<br />
* [[Daniel Woodriff]]<br />
* [[Evan Nepean]]<br />
* [[Charles Middleton]]<br />
* [[Thomas Shelton]]<br />
* [[William Chinnery]]<br />
* [[Navy Board Staff]]<br />
* [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
* [[Ship Logs]]<br />
* [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=559Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-03-26T11:34:54Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok, "Images of the Canton Factories, 1760-1822", Kong Kong University Press, 2015.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable.<br />
<br />
In this book, Paul and his colleague, Maria Kar-Wing Mok, a curator at the Hong Kong Museum of Art, have used paintings made by European and Chinese artists for the export market to make sense of the European factories at Canton. They are not the first historians to work with these images, but Paul's deep knowledge of the European archives has enabled them to make sense of inconsistencies that defeated earlier researchers. As a result, they have been able to date the various paintings more accurately (and identify those where the artists have taken licence), and construct a more detailed history of how the European uses of this neighbourhood changed over time,<br />
<br />
I first saw this material at a conference at Sun Yat Sen University in Guangzhou in November 2013, where Paul and Maria used powerpoint to present many of the images that have now been published in the book. It had a profound impact on me, and without fully being aware of it, I borrowed the technique when I was studying the early 19th century paintings of the west side of Sydney Cove for my work on Phillip's landing place.<br />
<br />
The European ships never made it as far as Canton - they were anchored at Whampoa, 20 kilometres down river, where the cargoes were loaded and unloaded. Crews would spend some of their liberty at Canton, but most of their time was spent on the ships and the nearby islands at Whampoa. The good news is that Maria has also been doing work on the 18th and 19th century paintings of Whampoa, which may enable us to better understand how the Canton trade operated.<br />
<br />
Paul's final book on the Cohong, which will cover the period when the Botany Bay ships visited, will be published shortly. <br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 22 March 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[Botany Baymen]]<br />
* [[Letters of Marque]]<br />
* [[First Fleet]]<br />
* [[First Fleet & the Abolition Movement]]<br />
* [[Counterfeit Coins]]<br />
* [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
* [[Second Fleet]]<br />
* [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Irons]]<br />
* [[Trade in Services]]<br />
* [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
* [[Valuables]]<br />
* [[Seasickness]]<br />
* [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Rights]]<br />
* [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
* [[Diet Tables]]<br />
* [[Insurance]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Alexander and the Friendship to Batavia]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Charlotte and Scarborough to China]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Lady Penrhyn from Port Jackson to Macau]]<br />
* [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
* [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
* [[Commodore of the Fleet]]<br />
* [[William Matthews]]<br />
* [[Camden, Calvert & King - First Fleet]]<br />
* [[John Marshall's Journal]]<br />
* [[Naval Agents]]<br />
* [[George Teer]]<br />
* [[John Shortland]]<br />
* [[John Shapcote]]<br />
* [[Daniel Woodriff]]<br />
* [[Evan Nepean]]<br />
* [[Charles Middleton]]<br />
* [[Thomas Shelton]]<br />
* [[William Chinnery]]<br />
* [[Navy Board Staff]]<br />
* [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
* [[Ship Logs]]<br />
* [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=558Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-03-26T11:34:18Z<p>Admin: /* Contents */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok, "Images of the Canton Factories, 1760-1822", Kong Kong University Press, 2015.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable.<br />
<br />
In this book, Paul and his colleague, Maria Kar-Wing Mok, a curator at the Hong Kong Museum of Art, have used paintings made by European and Chinese artists for the export market to make sense of the European factories at Canton. They are not the first historians to work with these images, but Paul's deep knowledge of the European archives has enabled them to make sense of inconsistencies that defeated earlier researchers. As a result, they have been able to date the various paintings more accurately (and identify those where the artists have taken licence), and construct a more detailed history of how the European uses of this neighbourhood changed over time,<br />
<br />
I first saw this material at a conference at Sun Yat Sen University in Guangzhou in November 2013, where Paul and Maria used powerpoint to present many of the images that have now been published in the book. It had a profound impact on me, and without fully being aware of it, I borrowed the technique when I was studying the early 19th century paintings of the west side of Sydney Cove for my work on Phillip's landing place.<br />
<br />
The European ships never made it as far as Canton - they were anchored at Whampoa, 20 kilometres down river, where the cargoes were loaded and unloaded. Crews would spend some of their liberty at Canton, but most of their time was spent on the ships and the nearby islands at Whampoa. The good news is that Maria has also been doing work on the 18th and 19th century paintings of Whampoa, which may enable us to better understand how the Canton trade operated.<br />
<br />
Paul's final book on the Cohong, which will cover the period when the Botany Bay ships visited, will be published shortly. <br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 22 March 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[Botany Baymen]]<br />
* [[Letters of Marque]]<br />
* [[First Fleet]]<br />
* [[First Fleet & the Abolition Movement]]<br />
* [[Counterfeit Coins]]<br />
* [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
* [[Second Fleet]]<br />
* [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Irons]]<br />
* [[Trade in Services]]<br />
* [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
* [[Valuables]]<br />
* [[Seasickness]]<br />
* [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Rights]]<br />
* [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
* [[Diet Tables]]<br />
* [[Insurance]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Alexander and the Friendship to Batavia]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Charlotte and Scarborough to China]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Lady Penrhyn from Port Jackson to Macau]]<br />
* [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
* [[Commodore of the Fleet]]<br />
* [[William Matthews]]<br />
* [[Camden, Calvert & King - First Fleet]]<br />
* [[John Marshall's Journal]]<br />
* [[Naval Agents]]<br />
* [[George Teer]]<br />
* [[John Shortland]]<br />
* [[John Shapcote]]<br />
* [[Daniel Woodriff]]<br />
* [[Evan Nepean]]<br />
* [[Charles Middleton]]<br />
* [[Thomas Shelton]]<br />
* [[William Chinnery]]<br />
* [[Navy Board Staff]]<br />
* [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
* [[Ship Logs]]<br />
* [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| [[Contracts of Effectual Transportation]]<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=557Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:32:53Z<p>Admin: /* Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . ."<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
a. Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
b. He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
c. Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
d. The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
e. Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
f. He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
g. Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
h. A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
i. In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
By the same Sheriff<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=556Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:31:46Z<p>Admin: /* Third Fleet */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . ."<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
a. Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
b. He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
c. Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
d. The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
e. Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
f. He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
g. Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
h. A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
i. In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=555Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:31:13Z<p>Admin: /* Guardian - Systematisation */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . ."<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
a. Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
b. He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
c. Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
d. The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
e. Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
f. He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
g. Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
h. A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
i. In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=554Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:29:36Z<p>Admin: /* Transfer of Servitude to the Governor */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . ."<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=553Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:28:38Z<p>Admin: /* Workload */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=552Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:26:40Z<p>Admin: /* Workload */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed was a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since 'they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names'.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the ''Prince of Wales''. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the ''Prince of Wales'' & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the ''Prince of Wales''<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The ''Alexander'' took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The ''Scarborough'' has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The ''Charlotte'' the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The ''Friendship'' the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales''<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The ''Lady Penrhyn''<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the ''Lady Penrhyn'', it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=551Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:23:18Z<p>Admin: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
- Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro."<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=550Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:22:24Z<p>Admin: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
in the presence of<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
1. The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
2. The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
3. The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=549Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:19:38Z<p>Admin: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
Ship Lady Penrhyn<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=548Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:17:58Z<p>Admin: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=547Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:17:24Z<p>Admin: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
"The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies."<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation."<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
". . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . ."<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
"The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’."<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=546Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:15:55Z<p>Admin: /* Bonds and Sureties */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
"Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success."<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
"He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . ."<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
"If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . ."<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
"I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship."<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
"Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock."<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
[[Category:Contracts]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=545Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:13:50Z<p>Admin: /* Guardian - Systematisation */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
"And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . ."<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
"Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland."<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Second Fleet=<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
"This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
"And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Witnesses<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do"<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Third Fleet=<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
"<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad."<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’"<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=HMS Gorgon=<br />
<br />
The following letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
"Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
"I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
"NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them."<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Sugar Cane=<br />
<br />
When the ''Sugar Cane'' arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Pitt=<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
"The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship."<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
"The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . ."<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds==<br />
<br />
"Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
"NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
"You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them." <br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
"Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
"Henry Harrison"<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Scotland – Caution Bonds==<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki>"<ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
=Bonds and Sureties=<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=544Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:06:22Z<p>Admin: /* Lady Juliana */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
Presence of<br />
Wm Richards<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
To for transporting<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=543Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T11:05:09Z<p>Admin: /* Lady Juliana */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
"And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
"Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
"And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
"In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King"<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
"1789<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Bond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of Ipswich Susanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
"Signed and delivered by the within<br />
named William Richards the Wm Richards Jun<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup> Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
"Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
J.W. Knapp"<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
"Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
"I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
"Your most ob. servt<br />
Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"9 April 1789<br />
<br />
"Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
"Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth Wm Richards Jnr"<br />
<br />
"4 April 1789<br />
<br />
"To<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
Galleons near Woolwich"<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
"Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)"<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
=Guardian - Systematisation=<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=542Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T10:59:12Z<p>Admin: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
"W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
"This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki> Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds."<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
"A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
"The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
"You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it."<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
"His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport."<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds."<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
"I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Workload==<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
"Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
"You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . ."<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
"Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212."<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
"For the Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
"For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
Mary Long<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
"The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
"Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
"For instance:<br />
<br />
"The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
pardoned - 1 12 197<br />
<br />
"The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
"The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
Males – 86<br />
Females - 20 106<br />
Children extra - 2 108<br />
<br />
"The Friendship the same, viz<br />
Males – 75<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
Females – 19<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
"The Prince of Wales<br />
Females – 6<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
"The Lady Penrhyn<br />
Females – 102<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
Children extra – 5 108<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
"As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penrhyn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter."</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Transfers of Servitude from George Moore==<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
"Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
"And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
"George Moore<br />
<br />
"By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
"Thos Quayle"<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
==Transfer of Servitude to the Governor==<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
"The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
"The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
==What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes?==<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
"Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
"The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue."<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
=Lady Juliana=<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
"I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody."<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=541Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T10:49:04Z<p>Admin: /* Procedure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
"I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
"I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed."<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
". . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . ."<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
"In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards."<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
"Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
"Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
"Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
"Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki>Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds.<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it.<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
<br />
His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport.<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds.<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
<br />
I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Workload''<br />
<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . .<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
<br />
‘Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212.’<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
<br />
Mary Long<br />
<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
<br />
The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 112197<br />
<br />
<br />
The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
<br />
The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2108<br />
<br />
<br />
The Friendship the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
<br />
As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penhryn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter.</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfers of Servitude from George Moore''<br />
<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
George Moore<br />
<br />
<br />
By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thos Quayle<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfer of Servitude to the Governor''<br />
<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
<br />
The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
<br />
''What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes''?<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lady Juliana'''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody.<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=540Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T10:47:13Z<p>Admin: /* First Fleet */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure."<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
==Procedure==<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
". . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>"Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature."<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
<br />
I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed.<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . .<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
<br />
In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards.<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
<br />
Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
<br />
This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki>Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds.<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it.<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
<br />
His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport.<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds.<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
<br />
I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Workload''<br />
<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . .<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
<br />
‘Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212.’<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
<br />
Mary Long<br />
<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
<br />
The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 112197<br />
<br />
<br />
The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
<br />
The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2108<br />
<br />
<br />
The Friendship the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
<br />
As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penhryn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter.</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfers of Servitude from George Moore''<br />
<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
George Moore<br />
<br />
<br />
By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thos Quayle<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfer of Servitude to the Governor''<br />
<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
<br />
The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
<br />
''What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes''?<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lady Juliana'''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody.<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=539Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T10:46:03Z<p>Admin: /* First Fleet */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
"An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
"Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line."</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Procedure''<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature.<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
<br />
I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed.<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . .<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
<br />
In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards.<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
<br />
Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
<br />
This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki>Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds.<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it.<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
<br />
His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport.<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds.<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
<br />
I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Workload''<br />
<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . .<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
<br />
‘Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212.’<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
<br />
Mary Long<br />
<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
<br />
The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 112197<br />
<br />
<br />
The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
<br />
The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2108<br />
<br />
<br />
The Friendship the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
<br />
As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penhryn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter.</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfers of Servitude from George Moore''<br />
<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
George Moore<br />
<br />
<br />
By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thos Quayle<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfer of Servitude to the Governor''<br />
<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
<br />
The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
<br />
''What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes''?<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lady Juliana'''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody.<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=538Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T10:16:47Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
The Act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
=First Fleet=<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Procedure''<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature.<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
<br />
I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed.<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . .<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
<br />
In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards.<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
<br />
Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
<br />
This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki>Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds.<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it.<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
<br />
His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport.<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds.<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
<br />
I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Workload''<br />
<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . .<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
<br />
‘Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212.’<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
<br />
Mary Long<br />
<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
<br />
The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 112197<br />
<br />
<br />
The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
<br />
The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2108<br />
<br />
<br />
The Friendship the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
<br />
As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penhryn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter.</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfers of Servitude from George Moore''<br />
<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
George Moore<br />
<br />
<br />
By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thos Quayle<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfer of Servitude to the Governor''<br />
<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
<br />
The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
<br />
''What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes''?<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lady Juliana'''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody.<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Contracts_of_Effectual_Transportation&diff=537Contracts of Effectual Transportation2016-03-26T08:11:54Z<p>Admin: Created page with "<center>'''Contracts of Effectual Transportation'''</center> '''Background''' The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation f..."</p>
<hr />
<div><center>'''Contracts of Effectual Transportation'''</center><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Background'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The Transportation Act of 1718 (4 Geo. I, c.11) introduced the punishment of transportation for specified offences, to be undertaken by contractors. The Act provided that the persons contracting were to ‘have a Property and Interest in the Service’ of the convict for the duration of their sentence.<ref name="ftn1"><sup>Alan Atkinson, ‘The Free-Born Englishman Transported: Convict Rights as a Measure of Eighteenth-Century Empire’, ''Past & Present'' (1994) No.144, pp.88-115 at p.97.</sup></ref> This proprietary interest was sold to farmers, merchants and householders upon arrival in North America, in much the same way as the labour of indentured servants was sold, and in this way, the contractor recovered the costs of the voyage. Kercher has noted that confusion with the system of indentured labour was built into the 1718 Act:<br />
<br />
<br />
The act provided for merchants to enter into contracts to carry the convicts to America, under which they gained a property interest in the convicts' services. In America, the merchants sold the labor of the convicts just as they sold the labor of indentured workers. The confusion between convict transportation and indentured labor is also shown by section 5 of the 1718 Transportation Act, which provided for the transportation of unconvicted people between fifteen and twenty-one years of age who agreed to travel to America. The preamble to the act stated that one of its purposes was to solve the problem of the lack of servants in the American colonies.<ref name="ftn2"><sup>Bruce Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850’, ''Law and History Review ''(2003), Vol.21, Issue 3, p.527-584 at p.531.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The 1718 Transportation Act did not explicitly require that convicts be put to labor, only that they be taken out of Britain or Ireland for the period fixed by the courts or the Crown in its mercy. The sale of convict labor was a consequence of the merchants' ownership of their services, not a direct requirement of the statutory scheme. Wealthy convicts were able to pay for cabins during the voyage and once they arrived in America, they could buy their own liberty. Convicts who could pay only part of the price the merchant expected were required to work for only part of the period of transportation. For these convicts, transportation was simply compulsory exile for a period, fitting Atkinson's older model of transportation.<ref name="ftn3"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.533. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
These legal arrangements were repeated in the Transportation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, c.56):<br />
<br />
<br />
. . .and such Person or Persons so contracting as aforesaid, his or her Assigns, by virtue of such Order of Transfer as aforesaid, shall have a Property in the service of such Offender or Offenders for such Terms respectively. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
Since there was no private labour market in the penal colony established in New South Wales, the proprietary interest in the convicts’ labour was routinely transferred to the Governor upon arrival. Kercher argues that this arrangement continued until the Transportation Act of 1824, which transferred the custody of the convicts to the contractor, but made no direct mention of a proprietary interest in their service.<br />
<br />
<br />
The 1824 Act made no mention of the transfer of the property or usage of the convict's labor to the contractor, although section 4 apparently gave the convict into the custody of the contractor. By section 8, when the contractor passed custody of the convict to the colonial governor or other person to whom the contractor was directed to deliver the convict, the ‘Property in the Service of such Offender shall be vested in the Governor of the Colony for the Time being, or in such other Person or Persons’.<ref name="ftn4"><sup>Kercher, ‘Perish or Prosper’, p.569. See also David Meredith and Deborah Oxley, ‘Contracting Convicts: The Convict Labour Market in Van Diemen’s Land 1840-1857’, ''Australian Economic History Review'' (2005) 45:1, pp.45-72, and Jennie Jeppesen, ‘“Necessary Servitude”: Contrasting Experiences of Convicts in Virginia 1615-1775 and Australia 1800-1840’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, October 2014.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether his interpretation is sound. Kercher could not understand why the proprietary system had been retained. As I have argued in another paper, the answer to this is almost certainly that it provided the legal foundation for punishment (or more strictly, discipline) of prisoners on convict transports. Since there was no statutory basis for such disciple, it seems most likely that it rested in the law of master and servant.<br />
<br />
<br />
The transfer of servitude was based on two legal documents, a ‘contract of effectual transportation’ signed between the contractor and local justice officials, which legal transferred custody and a proprietary interest in the prisoner’s service, and a financial bond, which left the contractor open to a monetary penalty if he failed to transfer the convict to his or her intended destination.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>[Acknowledgements to Lauren Bell for locating the Scottish caution bonds for the </nowiki>''Pitt''.]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''First Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
From the outset, the need for contracts and bonds of effectual transportation was taken for granted by the Home Office, referring to them as ‘the usual bonds’. For example, on 10 March 1787, the under-secretary of the Home Office, Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, concerning the procedure for transporting two convicts:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the Friendship arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn5"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Procedure''<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office assumed that the procedure would be understood, but the Navy Board, which was managing the procurement of convict transports for the first time, was completely unaware of the system. It came as a complete surprise to the Comptroller of the Navy, Sir Charles Middleton when, on 9 December 1786, Nepean suddenly announced that he hoped it had occurred to Middleton in his engagements with the owners of the transports, as well as the masters and mates, to obtain bonds which legislation required, for their safe custody whilst on board the transports, If this had not been done, new difficulties would arise, for the courts would not vest them with the custody of the convicts without it.<ref name="ftn6"><sup>TNA CO201/2/49-50; ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (hereafter HRNSW) Vol. 1:2, p.34.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton was taken by surprise and responded on the 11<sup>th</sup> that he saw a real difficulty, unless the King’s authority was given to dispense with the usual requirement for these contracts and bonds to be issued by local courts and officials. This was the first time that he had been involved in sending out convicts, and had been unaware of the legal forms, of which he should have been advised with the original order in August. As far as he could remember, those who formerly carried convicts to America had not only an allowance per head, but an interest in them after they were embarked. ‘This makes a wide difference, and would account for ye security, which, under the present circumstances, cannot be expected from owners of ships, who have no other advantage but the freight and victualling, and take the risk of their ships (which, by the bye, is no small one) upon themselves.’<ref name="ftn7"><sup>TNA CO201/2/51-52; HRNSW 1:2, 35-6</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the First Fleet contractor, William Richards had been aware of this legal obligation, but if not, Nepean had quickly apprised him. Since this required Richards to obtain sureties, it was no mere formality.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 13 December, Nepean wrote to the clerks of the peace (except Norfolk) and to Thomas Shelton, the Clerk of Arraigns for London & Middlesex, advising them that the convicts named in an attached list, then in the custody of Duncan Campbell (the hulks contractor), would be loaded on board the ''Alexander'', bound for NSW.<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . the commander of that ship, Mr Duncan Sinclair, as well as the contractor, Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds. I send a draft for your guidance which has been approved by the law officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Sinclair and Mr Richards will be at this office on Friday morning [the 15</nowiki><sup>th</sup> of December] at 9 o’clock and it is hoped you will meet them with the bonds ready for their signature.<ref name="ftn8"><sup>Nepean to Clerks of Circuits, 13 December 1786, Public Record office, TNA HO13/4/355.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
As Middleton had predicted, preparation of the contracts and bonds were to take many weeks of detailed paperwork on the part of local law enforcement officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
In some cases, the bonds and contracts were sent to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the Masters. For example, on 20 January, a London lawyer, Francis Squires (at New Inn), wrote to Evan Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I was desired by Mr Hall to prepare a bond and contract for the transportation of Mary Gabb which have been left with Mr Richards to be executed by Captain Sever commander of the Lady Penhryn. Mary Gabb was tried at St Margaret’s Hill on ye 13<sup>th</sup> Jan<sup>y</sup> 1784 and ordered to be transported to America for 7 years.<br />
<br />
<br />
I will immediately prepare bonds and contracts for ye transportation of Mary Dickinson, Ann Martin and Amelia Levy and must beg the favor of you to let me know when and where I may attend to get them executed.<ref name="ftn9"><sup>TNA HO42/11/45.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The bonds and (it seems) a copy of the warrant were signed by the ships’ masters or mates when they received the convicts on board. For the most part, this process goes unrecorded in the ships’ logs, except for the first group of convicts delivered onto the ''Alexander ''on the 7<sup>th</sup> of January, where the log records that they received a warrant to be signed for the convicts and their delivery to Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn10"><sup>Journal of the ''Alexander'', TNA ADM51/4375, 7 January 1787.</sup></ref> Only Richards signed the contracts, but both he and the masters signed the bonds.<ref name="ftn11"><sup>TNA HO42/11/171-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the southern ports (Portsmouth and Plymouth), the masters signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials.<br />
<br />
<br />
On 19 January 1787, Nepean wrote to the Mayor of Plymouth. The four men whose names were in the margin had been tried at the Quarter Sessions held at Plymouth and were now on the ''Dunkirk''. The brig ''Friendship'', now at Plymouth, had been appointed to convey them to the place of their destination. Mr William Richards Junior, of Walworth, ship broker, with Mr Francis Walton, the master of the said ship, would enter into the usual bonds and the former would sign the contract pursuant to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of His Present Majesty. After Mr Walton had signed the bonds, they were to be sent to Nepean, along with the contract and he would get them properly executed by Mr Richards and returned to him without delay.<ref name="ftn12"><sup>TNA HO13/5/30.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The following day, Lord Sydney wrote to Henry Ley, Esq., at Exeter:<br />
<br />
<br />
. . . The Master of the ''Charlotte'' transport Thomas Gilbert now at Plymouth with Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth ship broker, will be ready to enter into the usual bonds for the transportation of Elizabeth Griffin whose destination will be fixed to the coast of New South Wales by an order of His Majesty in Council which I expect will pass on Wednesday next in conformity to the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of the present reign, and Mr Richards will also enter into the contracts required by the said Act for her transportation. . .<ref name="ftn13"><sup>TNA HO13/5/37.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On learning of this practice, Richards sent an instruction to the masters that they were not to sign the bonds before he had. This is mentioned in a letter from Mr Digory Tonmin, Plymouth, to Evan Nepean, dated 3 February:<br />
<br />
<br />
In consequence of your directions, Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship, has been applied to, to execute the bonds for the transportation of Edward Perkins, John Petherick, Moses Ticker and Charles Granger, which he refuses to do till the same have been first executed by Mr William Richards Junr – alleging that he has received orders from him to that purpose. I have therefore enclosed them to you with the contracts and must request you will be good enough to return them to me when executed by Mr Richards.<ref name="ftn14"><sup>TNA HO42/11/86.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 27<sup>th</sup> of January 1787, William Richards signed the contract of effectual transportation for Mary Mitchell, shipped from Kingston, Surrey. This is the only example presently known of a contract of effectual transportation for the First Fleet:<br />
<br />
<br />
Kingston Surrey<br />
<br />
Counterpart Contract<br />
<br />
Mary Mitchell<br />
<br />
Ship Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
W<sup>m</sup> Cropton Sever Commander<br />
<br />
<br />
This Ind<sup>re</sup><nowiki> [indenture] made the 27</nowiki><sup>th</sup> day of January <sup>in the yr of our Ld</sup> 1787 between Joseph Mackill Esq and Joseph Bradshaw Esq two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Town and Hundred of Kingston in the County of Surrey (except Richmond and Kew) of the one part and William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surry Ship Broker of the other part. Whence at the General and Oyer Session of the Peace of our Ld the King of the Town & Hundred of Kingston upon Thames in the C<sup>o</sup>y of Surry (except Richmond & Kew) held in the Guildhall of the s<sup>d</sup> Town on Mond<sup>y</sup> the 3<sup>d</sup> day of Oct<sup>r</sup> in the 25<sup>th</sup> y<sup>r</sup> of the Reign of our Sov<sup>n</sup> L<sup>d</sup> Geo the 3<sup>d</sup> by the Grace of God of G<sup>t</sup> Brit France & Ireland K<sup>g</sup> Defender of the Faith & in the y<sup>r</sup> of our L<sup>d</sup> 1785 before the above named Jos<sup>h</sup> Mackill & Jos<sup>h</sup> Bradshaw bailiffs of the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Thos Evance Esq<sup>r</sup> Recorder of the same &c their Associates Justices of the Peace of Our L<sup>d</sup> ye King in this the s<sup>d</sup> Town & Hundred (except as before excepted), appointed to hear & determine &c Mary Mitchell singlewoman was convicted of felony & by the s<sup>d</sup> Co<sup>t</sup> ordered to be transported for 7 <sup>yrs</sup> to parts beyond the seas to such place as his Majesty with the advice and consent of his Privy Council sh<sup>d</sup> be pleased to appoint and direct. And whereas in pursuance of a Statute in that case made and the <sup>same</sup> court did appoint the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the s<sup>d</sup> convict & to order suff<sup>t</sup> security to be taken for the same pursuant to the s<sup>d</sup> Act. Now know all men by these presents that the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. the s<sup>d</sup> two justices app<sup>d</sup> as afs<sup>d</sup> do in pursuance of the power given them as afs<sup>d</sup> contract & agree with the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards the Younger for his transporting the before m<sup>d</sup> convict to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the Statute in such case made & provided for the term for which she was so order’d to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from her Order of Transportation. And the s<sup>d</sup> J.M. & J.B. do by these presents assign transfer and make over the s<sup>d</sup><nowiki> convict [to] the s</nowiki><sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards & his assigns to and for his use for the s<sup>d</sup> term accord<sup>g</sup> to the purport of the s<sup>d</sup> Act. And the s<sup>d</sup> W<sup>m</sup> Richards for the consid. afs<sup>d</sup> doth hereby for himself & his assigns cov<sup>t</sup> & agree to & with the Jus<sup>s</sup> last above named to rece & take the s<sup>d</sup> convict out of the custody of Benj. Hall Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol for the C<sub>o</sub>y of Surry within this Borough of Southwark within whose custody the s<sup>d</sup> convict have been removed & now is pursuant to his Majesty’s order for that purpose and shall & will without any wilful delay put the s<sup>d</sup> convict on shipboard and transport or cause her to be transported out of G<sup>r</sup> Britain & as soon as may be land her (death & casualties of the seas excepted) on the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or o<sup>r</sup> of the Islands adjacent. I witness whereof the s<sup>d</sup> parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & yr first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed sealed & delivered by<br />
<br />
the said William Richards the<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stampt)<nowiki>Wm Richardson [sic]</nowiki><br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J<sup>h</sup> N Knapp<br />
<br />
Ja<sup>s</sup> Hill<ref name="ftn15"><sup>Kingston Archives, KE2/4/6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
We also have three undated and incomplete drafts of a combined contract and bond for four female convicts from Middlesex, retained in the county archives as a precedent. The following is a rough draft, which shows how it was amended:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we Wm Richards Junior of Walworth in the County of Surry Gentl<sup>n</sup><br />
<br />
are firmly held and bound to Henry Collingwood Selby Esquire Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex in the penal sum of £300 of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said Henry Collingwood Selby of his certain Attorney Executors Administrators or Assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us, our and each of our Heirs Executors and Administrators firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this day of in the Twenty Seventh of the Reign of our Sovereign King George the third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the Session house for the said County by adjournment on Friday the 21<sup>st</sup> day of October in the Twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Jane Field was tried and convicted of petit Larceny. And whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the County of Middlesex at the said Session house for the said County on Monday the 9<sup>th</sup> day of January in the Twenty sixth Year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George the Third King of Great Britain Susannah Mason otherwise Susan Mason alias Gibbs was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny And Whereas At the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> </sup>for the said County on Monday the 11<sup>th</sup> day of December last Ann Farmer was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny and whereas at the General Quarter Session of the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King holden in and for the said County at the said Session house<sup> for the said County</sup> on Monday the 19<sup>th</sup> day of February last Jane Field, Susanna Mason also Gibbs, Ann Farmer and Flora Larah otherwise Larah were was also tried and convicted of petit Larceny a certain fraud And Whereas his Majesty’s Justices of the peace aforesaid of the County of Middx have ordered and directed the said several convicts to be sent and transported as soon as conveniently might be to such place <sup>or places</sup> as His Majesty might judge fit by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare and appoint for the said term or terms in their several Sentences mentioned respectively pursuant to the Statutes in such case made and provided '''X''' and that they and every one of them should be conveyed transferred and made over to the above named W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> Wm Richards Junr and his Assigns for the term aforesaid in order to their being so Transported (the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup>) having contracted with the said Justices for the performance of such Transportation Now the condition of this Obligation is such that if the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> and his Assigns do and shall Transport or cause to be Transported all and every of the Convicts before named to some The Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some or other of the Islands adjacent as soon as conveniently may be and shall procure from the Governor or o<sup>r</sup> principal officer of the place whereunto they shall be so sent, an Authentic Certificate of their Landing (Death and Casualties of the Sea excepted) and if none of them shall be suffered to return from the s<sup>d</sup> Eastern Coast of New South Wales or the islands adjacent aforesaid to any part of Great Britain or Ireland by the wilful default of the said W<sup>m</sup> Richards Junior or his Assigns within the Times or Terms of their respective Sentences then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and Delivered (being first<br />
<br />
duly stamp’t) in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
'''X''' And Whereas His Majesty hath by and with the Advice of His Privy Council by these Several Orders of Council being dated respectively the 22<sup>nd</sup> Day of Dec<sup>r</sup>. 1786, the 12th of February 1787 and the 12 of Apl 1787 hath now last past declared and appointed the place to which the said several offenders shall be transported for the times or terms in their several sentences mentioned to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent, And whereas his said Majesty’s Justices of the peace af<sup>d</sup> have ordered and directed that y<sup>e </sup>s<sup>d</sup> several convicts<ref name="ftn16"><sup>London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA), Middlesex Transportation Contracts, 1682-1787. MJ/SP/T/02/096A-C.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There are several unusual features of this bond which require further research:<br />
<br />
<br />
# The document is a combined contract and bond, the only known example thus far.<br />
<br />
# The surety for the four women is £300, or £75 each, rather than the £40 per head otherwise stated as the amount of the bonds for First Fleet convicts. (Note, however, that the bond for Susanna Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana'' was £80.)<br />
<br />
# The bond names William Richards but not the Master of the ''Prince of Wales''.<br />
<br />
10 March 1787 – Evan Nepean wrote to public officials at Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, describing the procedure that had been adopted for executing the contracts and bonds:<br />
<br />
<br />
An Order of Council passed on the 12<sup>th</sup> of last month fixing that James Squires and James Bloodworth should be sent to the Coast of New South Wales for the times they are sentenced to be transported.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will contract for their Transportation, and with Mr Francis Walton, Master of the Friendship Transport will enter into the usual Bonds. If you will send the Contracts and Bonds to me I will get them executed, and as soon as the ''Friendship'' arrives at Portsmouth, I will send an order for the removal of the two convicts and commit them to the custody of the Master of her that they may be sent away. I must beg the favor of you to get the Instruments prepared as soon as possible as no time is to be lost in getting the convicts put on board, the ships being now upon the eve of their departure.<ref name="ftn17"><sup>Preserved in the Kingston archives at KT18/5 and available on line; and at TNA HO13/5/77.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
16 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
The ''Prince of Wales'' transport having been taken up for the purpose of carrying convicts under sentence of transportation to New South Wales, I am commanded to signify to you his Majesty’s pleasure that you do cause the four female convicts whose names are mentioned in the margin to be removed to Portsmouth; Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the contracts required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty and will be joined by the master of the said transport in the usual bonds.<ref name="ftn18"><sup>TNA HO13/5/88.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
22 March 1787 – William Pollock (Home Office) to Mr Wood, Gaoler at Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<br />
A person has called at Lord Sydney’s Office this Morning, who says that you have a Woman Transport from the Sessions, by Name Mary Pindar, whom you wish to remove to Portsmouth, with the other three Female Convicts in your Custody. I am directed to acquaint you that you may remove the said Mary Pindar, with the other three Women at Portsmouth, and Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contract required by the Act of the 24<sup>th</sup> of his present Majesty, and will be joined by the Master of the Prince of Wales Transport.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Female Child belonging to Rebecca Boulton may be sent up with her.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will send up Lord Sydney’s Letter of the 16<sup>th</sup> March to the Sheriff, in order that Mary Pindar’s Name may be inserted in it.<ref name="ftn19"><sup>TNA HO13/5/100.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
23 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. <br />
<br />
<br />
His Majesty having been pleased to give directions that Evan Pugh, a Male Convict & Elizabeth Parker & Elizabeth Mason, two female convicts now under Sentence of Transportation in the Gaol of Gloucester, should be removed on board the ''Prince of Wales'' transport at Portsmouth, in order to their being transported to New S<sup>o</sup> Wales, I am commanded to signify to you, His Majesty’s Pleasure that you forthwith cause the said Convicts to be removed on board the said Transport.<ref name="ftn20"><sup>TNA HO13/5/102-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 March 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of the county of Flint.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales Transport now at Portsmouth having been taken up for the purpose of conveying convicts under sentence of Transportation, to New South Wales, I am Commanded to signify to You His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do cause Frances Williams a Female convict now in the Jail of Flint to be removed to Portsmouth. Mr William Richards Jun<sup>r</sup> of Walworth will enter into the Contracts required by the 24<sup>th</sup> of his Present Majesty; and will be joined by the Master of the said Transport in the Usual Bonds.<ref name="ftn21"><sup>TNA HO13/5/106.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
28 April 1787 – Sydney to the High Sheriff of Surrey:<br />
<br />
<br />
I am commanded to signify to you His Majesty’s Pleasure that you do deliver over to the Keeper of Newgate the six Female Convicts now in the New Gaol in the Borough under Sentence of Transportation in order to their being sent to Portsmouth with other Convicts in Newgate to be transported to New South Wales. <br />
<br />
<br />
Susanna Blanchet, Mary Mitchcraft, Sarah Taylor, Martha Kennedy, Ann Forbes, Lydia Monro.<ref name="ftn22"><sup>TNA HO35/5/173.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Workload''<br />
<br />
<br />
The discovery by Middleton in early December 1786 that it was necessary to prepare contracts and bonds for each convict or group of convicts, meant that William Richards had to take on a great deal of additional work at a time when he would have assumed that his responsibilities were largely at an end. While government clerks (such as Shelton) were paid significant sums of money for their role in preparing the contracts and bonds, Richards was paid nothing, even though there had been no mention of this heavy responsibility when the contract was original negotiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
The following extract from a letter dated 1 April 1787 from Richards to Nepean demonstrates the extent of his involvement in ascertaining whether all of the convicts on board had contracts and bonds, and his role in guiding the process.<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed you have compleat lists of the convicts now on board the ships intended for Botany Bay together with other lists for your government in giving the necessary orders to the different Clerks of the Peace. They may be relied on as I have since they have been corrected per the different contracts & bonds mustered them on board the respective ships and they have all answered to the names.<br />
<br />
<br />
You will find that there are only six convicts and no convicts wifes sent down yet for the Prince of Wales transport. Her compliment is described per a list herewith sent as likewise the number for each other transport. The number wanted to compleat the whole is 24 men & 53 women. I should be much obliged if you would order the different Clerks of the Peace to send their bonds & contracts and counterparts (not executed) to me at the Crown Inn at this place, and I will take particular care to have them executed & will bring them with me on my return & send them to their respective offices. . .<ref name="ftn23"><sup>Richards to Nepean, 1 April 1787, TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Clerks of Assize also invested a great deal of time and effort in the preparation of this documentation, although they were not remunerated for several years. On 18 December 1788, Nepean wrote to William Chamberlayne, advising that the clerks of assize of the several circuits who were employed in 1786 and 1787 in drawing contracts and bonds had lately delivered to Lord Sydney’s office accounts of fees for transacting that business. He was directed to transmit the same to Chamberlayne, so that he could examine the same and report.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was understood that the clerks of assize had already received one guinea from the county for each of the convicts above alluded to, and it was therefore to be considered whether that allowance was not intended to satisfy them for their trouble in preparing the contracts and bonds as well as the usual fees upon conviction.<ref name="ftn24"><sup>TNA HO36/6/100-101.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
It is also likely that the account submitted by Thomas Shelton in February 1789, for drawing up contracts and bonds for London and Middlesex, related to the First Fleet. The account was for £295/7/8 and was forwarded by Lord Sydney to the Treasury on 22 February and approved by them on 2 March, the Treasury Solicitor having reported that Shelton was entitled to this payment.<ref name="ftn25"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 2 March 1789, TNA T29/60/233; Sydney to the Lords of the Treasury, 22 February 1789, HO36/6/198.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout April and early May 1787, William Richards spent a great deal of time at Portsmouth, among other things, preparing accurate lists of which convicts were on board the transports. While these were being forwarded to Nepean, the reason for Richards’ interest was his liabilities under the contracts and bonds.<br />
<br />
<br />
1 April 1787 – Richards seems to have been at Portsmouth again, staying at the Crown Inn. He or his agent, Zachariah Clark, had gone on the ships for a muster and prepared a list of the convicts on board the ships there.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Richards to Nepean. Enclosed is a complete list of the convicts now on board the ships, together with other lists for the government in giving the necessary orders to the clerks of the peace. They may be relied upon since ''they had been mustered on the respective ships and they had answered their names''.<br />
<br />
<br />
There were only 6 convicts and no convicts’ wives come down yet for the Prince of Wales. Her complement in the list was 24 men and 53 women. He would be much obliged if Nepean would order the different clerks of the peace to send their bonds, contracts and counterparts (not executed) to him ''at the Crown Inn'' and he would take particular care to have them executed. He would bring them with him on his return and send them to their respective officers.<br />
<br />
<br />
He had some time since mentioned that he would like to send Mr Zachariah Clark out as his agent. Nepean had said that he would consider it and speak to Captain Phillip. He had a letter from the Navy Board (communicating from the Treasury) confirming that he remain there as long as Richards’ business may require it.<ref name="ftn26"><sup>TNA CO201/2/252-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
3 April 1787 – (Richards was still at Portsmouth.) Shelton to Nepean, advising him when Samuel Hall was sentenced. ‘I have sent the bonds to Mr Richards at Portsmouth & have given certificates to Mr Akerman of bonds & contracts having been duly entered into for all the prisoners contained in your list to me who are in custody, so that they now await your order.’<ref name="ftn27"><sup>TNA HO42/11/220.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
5 April 1787 – (Richards appears to have developed his own concerns about the lack of victualling for the children of convicts based on his physical presence on the ships.) Richards to Nepean. About the children. Richards concerned about the lack of victualling – two had arrived on board the ''Prince of Wales'' with their mothers. He pointed out that no provision had been made for the victualling of children and that they were barely subsisting on their mothers’ allowance (suggesting that they were not newborns). Richards told Evan Nepean that he was concerned about their welfare and declared that he would take proper care of them. He added:<br />
<br />
<br />
‘Mr Shelton has this day sent me the bonds and contracts for 8 women from the Prince of Wales & 3 men for the Alexander which makes her compliment 212.’<ref name="ftn28"><sup>TNA CO201/2/294-5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 April 1787 – Nepean to Richards seeking to clarify which convicts in a list he had contracts and bonds for. He also questioned who the male convict on the Lady Penhryn was. ‘He must I suppose be the surgeon, whose name I think is John Irwin alias Law, and if so it is all well’.<ref name="ftn29"><sup>TNA HO13/5/165-6.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1787 – Richards (from Portsmouth) to Nepean.<br />
<br />
<br />
I duly received your letter of yesterday’s date & in reply beg leave to inform you that there have been contracts & bonds signed for the undermentioned female convicts, viz.<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Lady Penhryn<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Johnson<br />
<br />
Mary Dixon<br />
<br />
Esther Abrahams<br />
<br />
Jane Herbert alias Rose alias Jenny Russell<br />
<br />
Ruth Baldwin alias Bower<br />
<br />
<br />
For the Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Wilson<br />
<br />
Mary Newlan<br />
<br />
Ann Parsley<br />
<br />
Phebe Flarty<br />
<br />
Sarah Ault<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Scott<br />
<br />
Mary Long<br />
<br />
Mary Atkinson<br />
<br />
<br />
The remainder of the list you sent are entirely unknown to me.<br />
<br />
<br />
Respecting the difference between my return and Major Ross’s, it arises from my returning the whole number on board the ships, without allowing for casualties, whereas he only takes notice of those actually in being at the time he mustered them.<br />
<br />
<br />
For instance:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Alexander took on board - 209 convicts<br />
<br />
of whom have died - 11<br />
<br />
pardoned - 112197<br />
<br />
<br />
The Scarborough has the number originally taken on board except John Irvine who is on board the Lady Penrhyn - 205<br />
<br />
<br />
The Charlotte the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 86<br />
<br />
Females - 20106<br />
<br />
Children extra - 2108<br />
<br />
<br />
The Friendship the same, viz<br />
<br />
Males – 75<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 1<br />
<br />
Females – 19<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 2 97<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5 102<br />
<br />
<br />
The Prince of Wales<br />
<br />
Females – 6<br />
<br />
Taken on board since – 4 10<br />
<br />
Child extra – 1 11<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lady Penrhyn<br />
<br />
Females – 102<br />
<br />
John Irvine from Scarboro’ – 1 103<br />
<br />
Children extra – 5108<br />
<br />
One woman since dead – 1 107<br />
<br />
<br />
As a surgeon is now appointed for the Lady Penhryn, it is reported John Irvine will be placed in the Prince of Wales, there being at present no surgeon on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Respecting victualling the convicts &c with fresh provisions where they may touch during the passage, I will consider & inform you in a post or two. In the meantime, that the public business may not be retarded, [I] have replied to every other part of your letter.</nowiki><ref name="ftn30"><sup>TNA CO201/2/315-7; TNA HO42/11/285.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
8 May – Richards to Nepean. Reports prisoners taken on board and deaths, by name.<ref name="ftn31"><sup>TNA CO201/2/334.</sup></ref> (He was apparently still at Portsmouth.)<br />
<br />
<br />
The Home Office also assumed that Richards’ contractual obligations would have obliged him to keep detailed records:<br />
<br />
<br />
3 November 1787 – The extent of the government’s reliance on Richards is evident from a letter sent by Thomas Townsend on this date. The Duke of Richmond had requested him to provide an account of the number of convicts sent to Botany Bay under Governor Phillip, and he wrote to Richards, supposing by the nature of his contract that ‘you can more readily and accurately give it to me’.<ref name="ftn32"><sup>TNA HO13/6/10.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On 22 July 1793, Dundas transmitted to the Treasury, accounts from the clerks of assize employed in 1786 and 1787 in preparing the contracts and bonds. These were approved by Treasury on 25 July, and they directed Mr Chinnery, the NSW Agent, to pay the £588.<ref name="ftn33"><sup>Treasury Minutes, 25 July 1793, TNA T29/66/92.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfers of Servitude from George Moore''<br />
<br />
<br />
The London merchant, George Moore, had been awarded a contract to deliver three shiploads of convicts to North America in the immediate aftermath of the American War of Independence. There were mutinies on two of the ships which resulted in them being returned to port, and Moore’s captain struggled to find a place to land those on the third.<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1787, when the convicts who had been returned to England were being loaded on board the First Fleet, it became necessary to transfer the contracts of effectual transportation from Moore to Richards. Better than anything else, this demonstrate the continuity between the North American system of contracts and bonds and that used for New South Wales.<br />
<br />
<br />
2 April 1787 – Power of Attorney assigning rights to the convicts from George Moore (then in Salonica) to his nephew, Thomas Quayle:<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas certain fifty-one men and seven women, convicted of divers thefts, burglaries, crimes and offences for which they were ordered to be transported and accordingly were embarked on board of one or more vessels, as covenanted with and by several courts of justice, high sheriffs of counties, justices of the peace, clerks of the peace, &c – on the one part and by George Moore late of London, merchant, on the other part. And whereas the said George Moore did to the best of his power fulfil his agreement and embark the said men and women convicts as aforesaid on board of a vessel or vessels, and the said men and women so convicted having clandestinely or by violence and without the consent, privity or acquiescence of the said George Moore or his agent or agents, returned before the expiration or terms they were sentenced or ordered to remain abroad. And whereas the said men and women thus returned have been apprehended and again ordered to transportation and now are supposed to be on their voyage to Botany Bay, KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that I the aforementioned George Moore, now His Majesty’s Consul in Salonica, so authorise and appoint my nephew Thomas Quayle, of Princes Court, Westminster, Gentleman, to assign over the aforesaid convicts, men and women, unto Richards, he the said Richards having undertaken to transport the said convicts with the approbation and consent of His Majesty’s Secretaries of State or with other sufficient authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
And further to keep me harmless from all process, actions, and suits at law of any and every kind and degree whatever for or concerning the transportation and also the premature return from transportation of the aforesaid convicts, men and women, for an in consideration whereof, and for the purposes aforesaid, I hereunto subscribe my name in Salonica, the second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.<br />
<br />
<br />
George Moore<br />
<br />
<br />
By virtue of the beforegoing power and by the directions of the within named George Moore, I do hereby assign the said fifty one men and seven women convicts and all the right of the said George Moore to their servitude or labor to the said Richards, dated this tenth day of June 1787.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thos Quayle<ref name="ftn34"><sup>TNA CO201/2/321-321a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
24 or 25 April 1787 – Thomas Quayle to Nepean, enclosing a ‘power’ for the assignment of the returned convicts from his uncle, Mr George Moore, with a memorandum subjoined, which Mr Quayle hoped would answer the purpose. Quayle had waited on Nepean several times but had missed him.<ref name="ftn35"><sup>TNA CO201/2/319.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The convicts were not formally transferred to Richards until 10 June, that is, after the First Fleet had sailed.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Transfer of Servitude to the Governor''<br />
<br />
<br />
The instructions given to Governor Phillip on 25 April 1787 referred to the need to obtain an assignment of the servitude of the convicts from the masters of the transport ships before they sailed from Botany Bay.<ref name="ftn36"><sup>HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.87.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
There is no evidence from the ships’ logs that the First Fleet masters were involved in the making the transfers to the Governor at Port Jackson. They referred to the certificates or orders of discharge they received, and even linked this to the delivery of stores, but there was no mention of the contracts for effectual transportation. It seems that these were negotiated by Zachariah Clark, as Richards’ agent.<br />
<br />
<br />
9 July 1788 – Phillip to Nepean:<br />
<br />
<br />
The masters of transports having left with the agent the bonds and whatever papers they received that related to the convicts, I have no account of the time for which the convicts are sentenced, or the dates of their convictions. . .<ref name="ftn37"><sup>HRA 1:1, p.57.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The receipts for the delivery of the convicts and the transfer of their servitude would have been included in the documentation sent by Clark to Richards, presumably with the dispatches that went on the ''Alexander''.<br />
<br />
<br />
''What did it look like through William Richards’ eyes''?<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was informed of the need for contracts and bonds between the 9<sup>th</sup> and the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 1786, probably by the Home Office. Since there is no correspondence between Nepean and Middleton about the arrangements subsequently made with Richards, it seems likely that Nepean called him in and advised him of these additional responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
The responsibility for organising the contracts and bonds with local justice officials lay with Nepean, which is why he wrote to them on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December, but Nepean had assumed that Middleton would have raised the need for contracts and bonds with the ‘owners and masters’. However, since Middleton had no knowledge of the necessary arrangements, Nepean seems to have taken over. Nepean sent a template to each of the clerks, in a form that had been approved by the law officers, although he did refer to ‘the usual bonds’.<br />
<br />
<br />
By the 13<sup>th</sup>, both Richards and Duncan Sinclair (master of the ''Alexander'', which was to be one of the first ships loaded with convicts) had been informed of the need to sign contracts and bonds. They had agreed to attend a meeting at the Home Office at 9am on Friday the 15<sup>th</sup> of December to meet a number of the clerks of circuits to sign the contracts and bonds. It is unknown how many attended, but the process of signing the contracts and bonds would drag on for months.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the days after he was first advised and before the meeting on the 15<sup>th</sup>, Richards would have had to find sureties who would underwrite the performance of the bond. The details of these individuals are at present unknown.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Guardian'' and the ''Gorgon'', it is possible that Thomas Shelton drew up a contract and a bond for each convict; in other cases, however, in other cases (after the ''Guardian''), Shelton drew up a contract with a long list of convict names inserted into the document. An individual contract and bond was prepared for each local court jurisdiction, with the number being determined by how many were being transported from that locality.<br />
<br />
<br />
The contract or indenture was in Richards’ name and was signed by him – the legal right to the convict’s labour was transferred to the contractor alone and not to the master of the ship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on the only surviving complete set of documents from this early period (for Susannah Hunt on the ''Lady Juliana''), the bonds included the name of the contractor and the master, and were signed by both. Richards was also required to supply sureties and their addresses. Shelton’s account for the Second Fleet states that he drew a bond from ‘the contractor and his sureties’, and a set of contracts and bonds were done county by county.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is unclear whether the masters had their own sureties. The bond for Susannah Hunt – the earliest known example – read as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<ref name="ftn38"><sup>Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch, C/2/9/1/1/11/5.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the Second and Third Fleets, Shelton drew up contracts and bonds for the convicts from each jurisdiction, but also drew a ‘general bond’ from ‘the contractor and his sureties’ in relation to each ship, which seems to have been signed by the masters. Indeed, Shelton’s documentation for a number of the Third Fleet ships refers to drawing a bond from the contractor and the master of each ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, some change seems to have been made to the general bond by the masters when they executed the same at Portsmouth, and it was necessary to ‘ingross’ another bond from the contractor and the captains.<br />
<br />
<br />
The two sets of documents would be attested by witnesses. It was also necessary to pay a tax on the contract – in the contract for Susannah Hunt, the duty was 6/-, which was charged to the county. <br />
<br />
<br />
With the contract for Mary Mitchell (''Lady Penrhyn''), a counterpart of the contract was signed and sent back to the law clerks in the various courts. With the ''Lady Juliana'' and the ''Gorgon'', however, the contracts and bonds were returned to the county officials, and the other contract was taken on the ship. It would appear that there were two copies of the contract – the original and the counterpart – and that the former went with the convict on the ship. There must also have been multiple copies of the bond, with the original going back to the county.<br />
<br />
<br />
Shelton may already have drafted a deed of assignment of the convicts from Richards to Governor Phillip, which could have been signed by Richards at the same time, and perhaps counter-signed by Zachariah Clark on arrival in NSW. In some cases, the deed of assignment was simply written on the back of the contract.<br />
<br />
<br />
Richards also prepared a list of the convicts for whom such contracts had been signed, which enabled him to provide detailed information about the number and the status of convicts on board.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the ships in the Thames, the contracts and bonds were sent by the local clerks or their London agents to Richards first, who then arranged for them to be signed by the masters of the ''Alexander'' and the ''Lady Penrhyn''. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ships taking on convicts at the southern ports, it seems that in January, some of the masters may have signed the bonds first, and these and the contracts were sent to Nepean, who arranged for Richards to execute them formally. They were then sent back to the county officials. <br />
<br />
<br />
Richards was unhappy with this arrangement, presumably because the masters were signing bonds and receiving prisoners for which he was yet to execute the contracts. On discovering what was happening, he issued instructions to the masters that they were not to sign these documents until he had done so. Throughout January and February, these documents were being signed for individual convicts or for small numbers.<br />
<br />
<br />
In early April, when Richards was down at Portsmouth overseeing the purchase of fresh provisions, he asked Nepean to have the clerks send their bonds and contracts, and the counterparts, to him at the Crown Inn, and he was sign them and have the bonds signed by the masters. He later returned with them to London and had the counterparts sent to the respective offices.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Lady Juliana'''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the ''Lady Juliana'', Richards was given a contract for the transportation of female convicts from London and the Home Counties, and provided with a list of other towns and counties whom he might approach to make independent arrangements for transportation. Under these circumstances, the contracts of effectual transportation would have been negotiated directly with local officials. (In the result, the counties were not prepared to pay the full cost of transportation to New South Wales, where there was no prospect of the contractor recouping some of the costs by selling their labour into the local market.)<br />
<br />
<br />
On the 5<sup>th</sup> of February 1789, Richards wrote to the Keeper of HM Gaol, Brecon (and apparently to a number of other gaols around the country) concerning these arrangements. Among other things, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall have room after the convicts of the Home Circuit are on board for about 50 more. Of that number I have directions from the Secretary of State’s Office to take the five which are in your gaol upon the country’s agreeing to make me on the same allowance as I am to receive from government for each of the Home Circuit convicts and upon my receiving security for the payment, whatever it may be, I shall be ready to enter into contracts and bonds and will take the convicts into my custody in the course of ten days. I must beg of you to send any answer you may be authorized to give me upon this business as soon as possible that in case the county should not like to pay the expense I may send to some other place as there are other applications from the sheriffs of counties not included in the list which has been given to me and no time must be lost as the ship is now on her way from London to Spithead, and send me the names, ages & sentences of all the female convicts in your custody.<ref name="ftn39"><sup>TNA HO42/14/132-133.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the ''Lady Juliana'', we have the first complete example of a contract and the associated documentation signed by Richards. On the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 1789, Richards signed the contract for Susana Hunt, of Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Whereas at the General Sessions of the Peace and General Gaol Delivery at the Moothall in and for the town and borough of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk on Friday the seventeenth day of March in the twenty-eighth year of his present Majesty’s reign, Susanna the wife of John Hunt was convicted of grand larceny and was by the court ordered to be transported beyond the seas for and during the term of seven years to such place as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council should declare and appoint pursuant to the statute in that case lately made and provided.<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas in pursuance of the statute in that case made the court did appoint Charles Norris and William Lynch two of his Majesty’s justices of the peace for the said borough to contract with any person or persons for the performance of the transportation of the said Susanna Hunt and to order sufficient security to be taken for the same pursuant to the said Act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now know all men by these presents that the said Charles Norris and William Lynch, the said two justices appointed as aforesaid do in pursuance of the power given them aforesaid, contract and agree with William Richards the Younger of Walworth in the County of Surrey, gentleman, for his transporting the above name Susanna Hunt to Botany Bay upon the coast of New South Wales in pursuance of his Majesty’s Order in Council lately made in that behalf by virtue of the statute in that case made and provided for the term for which the said Susanna Hunt was so ordered to be transported as aforesaid to be computed from an order of transportation.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the said Charles Norris and William Lynch do by these presents assign, transfer and make over the said Susanna Hunt to the said William Richards the Younger and his assigns and to and for his use for the same term according to the purport of the said Act. And the said William Richards the Younger for the consideration aforesaid doth hereby for himself and his assigns covenant and agree to and with the said justices last above named to receive and take the said Susanna Hunt out of the custody of John Ripshase(?) Keeper of his Majesty’s Gaol of the County of Suffolk at Ipswich in the said County, and shall and will without any wilful delay put the said Susanna Hunt on shipboard and transport her or cause her to be transported out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the seas excepted) at Botany Bay aforesaid.<br />
<br />
<br />
In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above named<br />
<br />
Charles Norris and William Lynch<br />
<br />
being first duly stampt in the presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the above namedWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
William Richards the Younger in the<br />
<br />
Presence of<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards<br />
<br />
James King<br />
<br />
<br />
The bond is dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> of April, perhaps because it needed to be counter-signed by the Captain of the ship:<br />
<br />
1789<br />
<br />
Wm RichardsBond<br />
<br />
To for transporting<br />
<br />
The Town Cl of IpswichSusanna Hunt<br />
<br />
<br />
Know all men by these presents that we William Richards the Younger in the County of Surry Gentleman and George Aitkin of Union Street in the Parish of St Nicholas, Deptford, Mariner, are held and firmly bound to William Batley of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Gentleman Town Clerk and Clerk of the Peace of the Town and Borough of Ipswich aforesaid in the sum of eighty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain to be paid to the said William Batley or his certain attorney executors, administrators of assigns for which payment to be well and faithfully made we bind ourselves and each of us by himself for the whole our and each of our heirs executors and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents sealed with our seals. Dated this second day of April in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their assigns shall take and receive out of the custody of John Ripshaw Keeper on His Majesty’s Gaol at Ipswich aforesaid Susanna the wife of John Hunt and put her on ship board and transport her out of Great Britain and as soon as may be land her (death and casualties of the sea excepted) at Botany Bay upon the Coast of new South Wales or elsewhere as ordered and procure authentick certificates from the Governor Lieutenant Governor or other such evidence of the landing of the said Susanna Hunt in the place aforesaid as the nature of the case will admit and the same certificate or such other evidence produced to the said William Batley or his successors and if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or his or their assigns shall not by his or their wilful default suffer the said Susanna Hunt to be transported as aforesaid to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the term for which she is ordered to be transported or if the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or their executors administrators or assigns shall and do pay or cause to be paid to the said William Batley his successors or administrators the sum of forty pounds for the said Susanna Hunt to be so transported if she should not be transported accordingly or if she should be suffered to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the terms aforesaid by the wilful default of the said William Richards the Younger and George Aitkin or either of them or their assigns then this obligation to be void or else to remain in full force and virtue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Signed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named William Richards theWm Richards Jun<br />
<br />
Younger (being first duly stamp<sup>t</sup>Geo Aitken<br />
<br />
in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
Sealed and delivered by the within<br />
<br />
named George Aitken in the presence of<br />
<br />
J.W. Knapp<br />
<br />
<br />
There were also enclosed the letters of instruction relating to these documents:<br />
<br />
Queens Row, Walworth<br />
<br />
<br />
I hereby enclose you the bond & contract for the transportation of the <nowiki>female convict now on bd the Lady Juliana transport. I had the contract stampt & paid 6/- for it which I will charge when the ship sails & the keep of the convict & that can be paid together. Remember me [illegible]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
Your most ob. servt<br />
<br />
<br />
Wm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
<br />
9 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
Keeper of HM Gaol<br />
<br />
Ipswich<br />
<br />
Receive on board the Lady Juliana transport from the Keeper of His Majesty’s Gaol for the County of Suffolk – the bodies of the one – female persons under sentence of transportation they are to be victualled, clothed & regulated as per instructions sent.<br />
<br />
<br />
Queens Row, WalworthWm Richards Jnr<br />
<br />
4 April 1789<br />
<br />
<br />
To<br />
<br />
Mr Geo. Aitken Master<br />
<br />
or the Commanding Officer<br />
<br />
on board the Lady Juliana transport<br />
<br />
Galleons near Woolwich<br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Rec’d Galleons April 4<sup>th</sup> 1789 on board the ship Lady Juliana, Susanna Hunt, a female convict from Ipswich.<br />
<br />
<br />
Per Robt. B. Garde(?)<ref name="ftn40"><sup>AJCP M941, State Library of NSW.???</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Guardian - Systematisation'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Middleton’s suggestion to Nepean in December 1786 that the authority to contract for effectual transportation should be centralised was adopted. Legislation was passed in 1788 providing that when the Secretary of State gave orders for the transportation of any offender, it would be lawful for him to authorise any person to make contracts for their effectual transportation, and any person entering in such contracts would have the same property in the service of such offenders as if such contract had been made and security given under 24 George III, c.56.<ref name="ftn41"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The next ship was ''HMS Guardian'', which carried 25 convicts, and in July 1789, the Secretary of State issued a warrant authorising Thomas Shelton to contract for twenty-five named convicts ‘with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of the several convicts above named, and to take security from the person or persons so contracting. . .’<ref name="ftn42"><sup>Shelton’s warrant signed by W.W. Grenville, 18 July 1789, TNA HO13/7/125-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In October 1789, a royal warrant was issued formalising these arrangements. Shelton was authorised to make contracts for the effectual transportation of offenders, and ‘to direct to what person or persons security shall be given for the effectual transportation of such offender or offenders’. The warrant provided that every such contract and security was equally valid, and every contractor had like property in the service of such offenders, as if such contracts and securities had been given under 24 Geo. III, c.56. Thomas Shelton was named in the warrant as having been authorised and empowered to make contracts with any fit person or persons for effectual transportation, and to take securities.<ref name="ftn43"><sup>‘Warrant Authorising Thomas Shelton Esq. to Contract for the Transportation of Convicts’, 30 October 1789, TNA CO201/4/161-162.</sup></ref> Thereafter, a warrant was issued to Shelton for each new shipment of convicts, with a list of the relevant convicts attached.<ref name="ftn44"><sup>We have copies of the warrants for the Scarborough (1791), which did not sail (TNA HO13/8/390-392); the Surprize, signed in 1793 and 1794 (TNA HO13/9/384-385, 387-388; 403); the Indispensable (2) in 1795 (TNA HO13/10/351-352); the Ganges in 1796 (TNA HO13/10/516-518); the Lady Shore in 1797 (TNA HO13/11/104-107); the Barwell in 1797 (HO13/11/334-343); the Britannia (4) in 1798 (TNA HO13/11/408-412), the Earl Cornwallis in 1800 (HO13/13/80-82) and several vessels which sailed in 1801 (TNA HO13/14/193-194).</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
For example, one of these warrant was issued in January 1792:<br />
<br />
<br />
And whereas from the great Number of Persons remaining on board the Hulks, & in the several Prisons within this Kingdom under Sentence of Transportation, We have. . . thought fit to give Directions that a number of Convicts, who were severally convicted at the Times & Places hereinafter mentioned. . . We do hereby authorize & empower our Trusty and Wellbeloved Thomas Shelton Esq. to make a Contract or Contracts with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the several Convicts whose Names are inserted in the List hereunto annexed. . .<ref name="ftn45"><sup>TNA HO13/8/390-392.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
From the ''Guardian'' in 1789 until Shelton’s death in 1829, we have his own accounts for drafting these contracts and managing these arrangements for shipments of convicts from England. Shelton was not responsible for the Irish convicts and as late as 1796, the Irish authorities were still remiss in not providing these certificates to the masters of the transports. On 3 March 1796, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland about a shipment of convicts that had recently arrived on the ''Marquis of Cornwallis'':<br />
<br />
<br />
Permit me, my Lord, to observe that the manner in which the convicts are sent from Ireland is so extremely careless and irregular that it must be felt by those people as a particular hardship, and by Government as a great inconvenience. Every ship from that country have omitted to bring any account of the conviction or term of transportation of those they bring out to this: nor do we ever receive any assignment of their services, because none have been made to the master of the ship. There are many in this settlement now who have repeatedly petitioned to be allowed to leave the country, or to labour and provide for themselves in it, their time, as they say, being completed; but I cannot well depend on their account, and it is certainly an act of injustice to the men if their story should be true. I hope, therefore, my Lord, that this evil may in future be remedied, and that we may have some account of those lately received from Ireland.<ref name="ftn46"><sup>Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland, 3 March 1796, HRNSW Vol. 3, p.32.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
With the 25 convicts shipped on the ''Guardian'' (1789), the Home Office introduced a regular and centralised system for preparation and signature of the contracts and bonds. As it applied to the ''Guardian'', that process was as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
# Shelton obtained the court documents relating to each of the convicts, and perused them in order to prepare contracts and bonds. With larger shipments (such as the Second and Third Fleets), Shelton had to obtain these documents from each of county courts and quarter sessions.<br />
<br />
# He drew up a contract for each of them, to be signed by Lieutenant Riou (the commander of the ''Guardian''), to be transported according to their several sentences. The contract apparently stated that he was to procure testimonials of their landing and that they should not be suffered to return before the expiration of their terms.<br />
<br />
# Shelton then took a bond from Riou and his sureties to perform the contract.<br />
<br />
# The contracts and bond then had to be attested.<br />
<br />
# Shelton drafted the assignment of the convicts from Riou to Governor Phillip. (In the case of the Second and Third Fleet ships, these were signed by the contractor immediately, but perhaps counter-signed by the master only when the ships arrived in NSW.)<br />
<br />
# He then made a copy of the list of the convicts, with the places where they had been convicted and the date of their convictions to be annexed to His Majesty’s warrant authorising Shelton to contract for the transportation of these convicts.<br />
<br />
# Another copy was made to be annexed to the assignment.<br />
<br />
# A third copy was made for the Secretary of State for the Home Department.<ref name="ftn47"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/1-2.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
# In the case of the Second Fleet, and no doubt of some of the others in the early years, Shelton prepared lists of such of the convicts as had been ordered to be transported to North America and to Africa, so that the same could be annexed to an order of the Privy Council appointed New South Wales as the place of transportation. It was also necessary for him to draw up an order for two of the judges to sign to be annexed to this order. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton attended the execution of the order by Baron Hotham and Mr Justice Heath.<ref name="ftn48"><sup>TNA ?? AO3/291/25-25a.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
Then it could be all made irrelevant at the last minute when convicts were moved from ship to ship. In the case of the Second Fleet, Shelton made a note in his accounts that Camden, Calvert and King had deviated from the original plan laid down by Lord Grenville and Evan Nepean, claiming that some of the ships were not ready and that they were obliged to sent some of the convicts on different ships from those that had originally been specified. Shelton was unhappy – he was not able to get regular returns from any of the ships to compare with the assignments to send to Governor Phillip (so that legal liability for escapes of named convicts was entirely vitiated). He sent one of his clerks by coach to the ships at Portsmouth to examine and correct the lists and assignments, in which he was engaged six days.<ref name="ftn49"><sup>TNA ?? AO/3/291/62.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
At the Cape of Good Hope, when the convicts were transferred to the ''Neptune'', Riou should have had Donald Trail, the master of that ship, sign the contracts and bonds, although Nash’s account of the ''Guardian'' suggests that Riou transferred them to the naval agent Shapcote:<br />
<br />
<br />
23 April 1790 – At 6am, 19 convicts were disembarked from the Guardian and delivered into the charge of a guard to be conveyed in waggons to False Bay. One convict was too sick to travel. As soon as they had left, Riou himself followed to dispose of them in a legal manner to Shapcote, and to be present at the delivery of the provisions. The convicts were delivered around 6pm.<ref name="ftn50"><sup>M.D. Nash (ed.), ''The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791'', Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.187.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 April 1790 – The beef and pork arrived. At 6pm, the sick convict from the Guardian arrived and Riou formally delivered him into Shapcote’s hands.<ref name="ftn51"><sup>Nash, p.188.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Second Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is a contract and bond for some of the convicts on the ''Surprize'', signed by the broker and notional contractor, George Whitlock, and the date of assignment to Governor Phillip (which is before the ship actually sailed). This was necessary, presumably, because the contractor could not be present at Port Jackson when the convicts were landed.<br />
<br />
<br />
This Indenture made the fourth day of December in the thirtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the faith and so forth in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine Between Thomas Shelton of the Session House in the City of London Esquire of the one part and George Whitlock of the Crutched Friars in the City of London Broker of the other part Whereas the persons named in the underwritten list being convicts for felony were at several Sessions of Gaol Delivery and of the Peace holden for the Counties and places and at the times mentioned against their respective names ordered and adjudged to be transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent thereto for the several terms also mentioned against the respective names, viz<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><nowiki>[List of convict names with ‘When and Where Sentenced’ and ‘Terms they were Sentenced to be Transported for’]</nowiki></center><br />
<br />
<br />
And Whereas his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manuel bearing date at his Court of St James’s the day of one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine in the thirtieth year of his reign reciting the power and authority given him in this behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the Twenty Eighth Year of his Reign entitled ‘An Act to continue several laws relating to the granting a bounty on the exportation of certain species of British and Irish linens exported and taking off the duties on the importation of foreign raw linen yarns made of flax and to the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts and for continuing and amending several laws relating to the imprisonment and transportation of offenders’ had given directions for the transportation of all the before named offenders and has gracefully thought fit to authorize and empower the herein before named Thomas Shelton to make a contract or contracts with any fit person or persons for the effectual transportation of them and to take security from the person or persons so contracting for their effectual transportation. And in pursuance of such authority and power the said Thomas Shelton hath assigned and transferred all the before named convicts unto the said George Whitlock for the respective terms for which they were ordered to be transported as aforesaid the said George Whitlock having contracted and agreed with the said Thomas Shelton for the effectual transportation of the said offenders according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid. Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Thomas Shelton in pursuance of such authority and power and in consideration of the contract and agreement of the said George Whitlock hereinafter mentioned and also of divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath assigned and transferred and by these presents Doth assign and transfer all the several convicts hereinbefore mentioned unto the said George Whitlock his executors administrators and assigns for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and orders to be transported as aforesaid. And the said George Whitlock for himself his executors administrations and assigns for and in consideration of his having a property in the service of the several convicts hereinbefore named for and during the residue and remainder of the terms for which they were respectively sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid and for divers other good causes and considerations him hereunto moving Hath contracted and agreed and by these presents Doth contract and agree to and with the said Thomas Shelton that he the said George Whitlock shall and will take and receive all the several convicts hereinbefore named and will put them on shipboard and shall and will transport or cause them to be effectually transported as soon as conveniently may be to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent according to their respective sentences and orders aforesaid and shall and will procure such evidence as the nature of the case will admit of the landing there of the said offenders (death and casualties by sea excepted) And that the said George Whitlock his Executors Administrators or Assigns shall not nor will by their wilful default suffer the said offenders so to be transported or any or either of them to return to any part of Great Britain or Ireland during the residue or remainder of the respective terms for which they were so sentenced and ordered to be transported as aforesaid In Witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals this day the day and year first above written.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| style="border-spacing:0;"<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in the presence of<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| George Whitlock<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| James Newman, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to Thomas Shelton<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
| style="border:none;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.191cm;padding-right:0.191cm;"| <br />
<br />
|}<br />
<nowiki>[Reverse]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
I the within named George Whitlock do assign and transfer unto Lieutenant Governor Phillips of New South Wales and his Assigns all the several convicts named in the within written contract for and during the remainder of the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported; and also all my right, title, interest, property, benefit and advantage in the said convicts or any or either of them, or in their or any or either of their service for and during the remainder of such respective terms, by virtue of the written contract or otherwise howsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.<br />
<br />
<br />
Witnesses<br />
<br />
<br />
James Newman George Whitlock<br />
<br />
Clerk to the within named Thomas Shelton<br />
<br />
<br />
Michael Jn<sup>o</sup> Fitzpatrick, do<ref name="ftn52"><sup>Colonial Secretary, ‘Convict Indents’,1788 to 1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Third Fleet'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Anthony Calvert had wider roles with the female convicts for the ''Mary Ann''. There is a note in the Colonial Office files that Mr Calvert was to bring up 14 women from the counties for the ''Mary Ann'' on 31 January 1791: 1 from Bodmin, 1 from Plymouth town, 6 from Exeter, 2 from Ilchester and 4 from Southampton. A note at the bottom says: ‘The counties to be at the charge which would be incurred were they to be carried to the nearest port. The contractor to pay the remainder.’<ref name="ftn53"><sup>TNA CO201/6/230.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
On the 15<sup>th</sup> of January, Evan Nepean wrote to E. Bardon (?). He had that day settled with the contractors, Messrs Camden, Calvert & King, that they were to receive on board the convicts now in the several northern county gaols on the 31<sup>st</sup> instant, by which time they have engaged that some of their ships would be at Woolwich properly equipped for their accommodation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mr Shelton, who has been employed in preparing the contracts and bonds, expects that those instruments would be executed on Friday next, and as soon after as possible he would send notice to the Sheriff of Durham that steps would be taken for bringing up the 8 male and 2 female convicts who appear to be in his custody under sentence of transportation in order that they might be sent abroad.<ref name="ftn54"><sup>TNA HO13/8/142.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The Indentures for the ''Matilda'' and the ''Mary Ann'' are dated 24 January 1791. They are in a similar format to that of the ''Surprize'' and were signed by Thomas Shelton, and on the other side, the individual signatures of William Camden, Anthony Calvert and Thomas King, and witnessed by James Newman and Richard Dally Jnr. The transfers were signed on 8 March (''Matilda'') and 15 March (''Mary Ann'') 1791 and reads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
We do hereby assign and transfer all our right, interest and property of, in & to the convicts named in this contract unto Lieutenant Governor Phillip of New South Wales. Dated this fifteenth day of March 1791.<br />
<br />
<div align="right">‘Camden, Calvert & King’<ref name="ftn55"><div align="right"><sup>Colonial Secretary, Convict Indents, 1788-1798, SANSW COD 9.</sup></div></ref></div><br />
<br />
<br />
These contracts were signed by the Governor upon delivery of the convicts in NSW and returned by the Master to the contractor in London. A letter from Thomas Melville, the Master of the Third Fleet ship, the ''Britannia'', dated 29 November 1791, reads in part: ‘I have enclosed you the certificates for the convicts, and receipts for the stores.’<ref name="ftn56"><sup>Quoted in John Hunter, ''An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and New South Wales'', London: John Stockdale, 1793, Chapter 23.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''HMS Gorgon'''<br />
<br />
<br />
The enclosed letter from Shelton to Nepean on 7 February 1791 relates to a small number of convicts to be sent on ''HMS Gorgon'' and provides some detail as to what happened on board the ships when the Masters signed:<br />
<br />
<br />
Enclosed are fourteen pair of contracts & as many bonds for the performance of them. I have executed all the contracts and so must Captain Parker in the presence of two witnesses who must subscribe the attestation which is wrote of being present and seeing him execute them. Captain Parker and any two of his officers (for the Acts require that the party contracting shall give security) must execute the bonds in the presence of the same persons who shall see him execute the contracts, and they must attest the execution of the bonds in like manner as the contracts. The contracts & bond for each place are put together & Captain Parker must return the bonds and a contract for each place; the other contract for each place he will take out with him, whereon, when he gets to New South Wales, I suppose he will endorse an assignment of the offenders to the Governor, which may be done shortly in this manner – ‘I, the within named J.P. do hereby assign my right & interest of & to the within named convicts unto Lieut. Gov. P., he promising & engaging to indemnify me & my securities against all damages I or they may sustain by the said convicts, or any of them being wilfully permitted to return to Great Britain or Ireland during the respective terms for which they were sentenced to be transported. Dated this day of ___’<br />
<br />
<br />
I am sorry that owing to my being an invalid, and the accuracy which is required in the writings, I have not been able to send you them before, but were any mistake to be made in them, particularly in the term, which for my own security I am obliged to get authentic documents of, I should be ruined by actions that might be commenced against me.<br />
<br />
<br />
NB: Before the bonds & contracts are executed, the names of the persons to be bound in the bond with Captain Parker, and their address, must be inserted immediately after Captain Parker’s at the beginning of the bonds – and also in the latter part of the contracts where it may be observed a blank is left for them.<ref name="ftn57"><sup>Thomas Shelton to Evan Nepean, 7 February 1791, TNA HO13/8/167-168.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Sugar Cane'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When the Sugar Cane arrived at Cork on 11 March 1793, William Richards was there to assist with the preparations. The Irish officials were not aware of the need for contracts and bonds, and were informed of the requirement by Richards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>A letter dated 14 March from John Forster, the Sheriff of Cork, to the Right Honourable Major Robert [Hobart?] included the following:</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>Mr Richardson [sic] told me in private conversation that whenever they took out convicts in England that the Master was obliged to enter into bonds for the delivery of them under a penalty of forty pounds each.</nowiki><ref name="ftn58"><sup><nowiki>Forster to Robert [Hobart?], 14 March 1793, O/P 52/2 State Paper Office, Castle Cork, Dublin, quoted in Barbara Hall, </nowiki>''A Nimble Fingered Tribe'', Sydney: Barbara Hall, 2002, p.xv. </sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Pitt'''<br />
<br />
<br />
10 May 1791 – Lord Grenville (Home Secretary) to Francis McGregor Esq.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship which has been taken up for the conveyance of convicts to New South Wales will probably proceed to Portsmouth in the course of ten days, where she will take on board such convicts as may be removed from the Gaols of the Western Counties. In the mean time it will be proper that the Certificates of the Conviction of such persons as are now under Sentence of Transportation in Cornwall should be transmitted to Mr Shelton, Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, that the usual Bonds and Contracts may be prepared by him, without which no legal custody of the Convicts can be given to the Commander of the Ship.<ref name="ftn59"><sup>TNA HO13/8/238.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
26 May 1791 – Grenville to Christopher Willoughby:<br />
<br />
<br />
The Ship ''Pitt''<nowiki> has lately been taken up for conveying to New South Wales such Convicts as are now in the Goals [sic] under Sentence of Transportation and directions will be forwarded to the Sheriff of Oxford to send W</nowiki><sup>m</sup> Furnell alias Cherry on board of that Ship, as soon as the Owners shall have entered into the Bonds and Contracts required by Law. . .<ref name="ftn60"><sup>TNA HO13/8/249-250.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Dorset – An Order to the Gaol Keeper Based on the Contracts and Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
Dorset. Sir Stephen Nash Kn<sup>t</sup> Sheriff of the County aforesaid To the Keeper of the Gaol of the said County Greeting<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>WHEREAS his Majesty by his Royal Sign Manual bearing Date at his Court at Saint James’s this eighteenth Day of May 1791 [routing?] the Power and Authority given to him in this Behalf in and by a certain Act of Parliament passed in the 28</nowiki><sup>th</sup> Year of his Reign has given Directions for the Transportation of Joseph Holmes, Mary Parsons, Nathaniel Kearley, and Diana Mioll Convicts in your Custody and has graciously thought fit to authorize and impower Thomas Shelton of the Session House London to make a Contract with any fit Person or Persons for the effectual Transportation of the said Convicts according to their respective Sentences and to take Security from the Person or Persons so contracting for the effectual Transportation of them NOW the said Thomas Shelton do hereby certify that George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire hath in due manner contracted for the effectual Transportation of the beforenamed offenders pursuant to their Sentences and hath given Security for the Performance of the said contract You are therefore hereby required forthwith to deliver over the Bodies of the said convicts to the said George Mackenzie Macaulay or his Assigns in order to their being so transported. Given under the Seal of my Office the 23<sup>rd</sup> Day of May 1791.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="right">By the same Sheriff</div><br />
<br />
<br />
NB: the Convicts will be received on Board the Pitt Transport Ship in the Thames on the 30<sup>th</sup> and 31<sup>st</sup> Inst. or P: Inno.<br />
<br />
<br />
You are to take with you the Orders of Transportation or Copies of them. <br />
<br />
<br />
Reverse:<br />
<br />
<br />
Received the Bodies of the Within Mentioned Convicts, Viz. Joseph Holms, Nathaniel Kierly, Mary Parsons, Diana Moill.<br />
<br />
<br />
Gravesend, May 31<sup>st</sup>, 1791<br />
<br />
Henry Harrison<ref name="ftn61"><sup>Dorset Archives Services, Q/Transportation, f.172.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Scotland – Caution Bonds''<br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of bonds signed by the ship owner and contractor, George Macaulay, for Scottish convicts shipped on the ''Pitt'', which in that case were known as ‘caution bonds’. The following relates to prisoners from Dumfries:<br />
<br />
<br />
<nowiki>I George Mackenzie Macaulay of Chatham Place London Esquire bind and oblige myself my Heirs and Successors as Cautioner and Surety acted in the Books of the Adjournal of the High Court of Judiciary for Edward Manning Shipmaster of London Commander of the good Ship – Pitt – that he shall transport and land at the Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent the person of James Muldrook present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Dumfries and the persons of George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett and Thomas Watling present prisoners on board the Lion hulk at Portsmouth removed thither according to the directions of the Act of Parliament in that behalf and report to the High Court of Judiciary a Certificate of his having done so within Three years of the date hereof and that under the penalty of Fifty pounds sterling in terms of and conform to the respective sentences duly pronounced upon the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook at Dumfries aforesaid and also of a certain order made by His Majesty by and with the advice of His Privy Council declaring and appointing the said Eastern Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent to be the place to which the said George Wills, Charles Reid, Robert Liggett, Thomas Watling and James Muldrook should be conveyed or transported. And I consent to the registration thereof in the books of the Adjournal that all execution competent may be direct hereon in form as [effects?]. And I constitute my Procurator for that purpose. In Witness whereof I have subscribed these presents wrote by Richard Dally at London the second day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety One. Before these witnesses Thomas Shelton of the Session house London Gentleman and Daniel Mahony of the same place Clerk to the said Thomas Shelton. [Signed by Macaulay and by Shelton and Mahony as witnesses.]</nowiki><ref name="ftn62"><sup>Justiciary Court Records, National Archives of Scotland, JC26/1791/66, Bonds of Caution.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Identical caution bonds also exist for:<br />
<br />
<br />
Edinburgh – Alexander McDonald, Alexander Mackenzie, William Tenant, George Molison, Duncan Wright and Janet Johnson in the Tollbooth at Edinburgh, and William Anderson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £70 also signed on 2 May in London with the same witnesses.<br />
<br />
<br />
Glasgow – Cecilia Clark, Charles Gardner and Thomas Martin in the tollbooth at Glasgow, and Kennedy Murry, William Hutton, John Gibson, David Browne and Thomas White on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £80, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inveraray – Isobel MacNeil, Catherine MacWar, and John MacLean alias McIntyre in the tollbooth, under a penalty of £30, signed on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perth – Mary Macvey alias Steel, and Katharine Ferguson in the tollbooth, and Alexander Waddell on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £30, executed by James Newman and signed by Macaulay and witnessed as above on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Aberdeen – Ann Brown, Jean Wilson, John Gordon and Amelia Fraser alias Mackenzie in the tollbooth, and Alexander Moir, Patrick Anderson, John Paull, William Bartlett, John Sangster alias Rottan, James Bonnyman and William Tough, on the ''Lion'' hulk, under penalty of £110, executed by Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Inverness – Janet Gordon, Margaret Mackinnon, Donald McDonald alias Duke, Roderick McDonald, Donald Kennedy, Alexander Burgess, Anne Burges, and William Leslie alias Ross, in the tollbooth, and Donald McRaskill on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £90, executed on 2 May by Michael John Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dingwall – Catherine Mackenzie prisoner in the tollbooth, in the penalty of £10, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ayr – John Reid and William Jameson, in the tollbooth, and Thomas Winstanley on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £30, executed by James Newman.<br />
<br />
<br />
Jedburgh – William Tweedie alias Murray, Thomas Hoyle alias Hall, Andrew Thompson, James Fairnington in the tollbooth, and James Agnew alias O’Neil and John Robertson on the ''Lion'' hulk, in the penalty of £60, executed by Michael John Fitzpatrick on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lanarkshire – John Scott on the ''Lion'' hulk, under a penalty of £10, executed by Richard Dally on 2 May.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Bonds and Sureties'''<br />
<br />
<br />
Although there are known examples where a convict contractor or a ship’s master was obliged to forfeit their bond (presumably because there was no evidence that they actively conspired to allow them to escape), the bonds were taken very seriously indeed, particularly in the early years. They provided that the contractor would be mulcted £40 for each convict that was not delivered to New South Wales because of the neglect of the masters and crew. (The bonds for the Scottish convicts on the ''Pitt'' were £10 per head.)<br />
<br />
<br />
''First Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In May 1788, as he was preparing to leave Sydney Cove for China, Thomas Gilbert of the ''Charlotte'' wrote that Lieutenant Bradley came on board to inquire whether any of the convicts had taken the opportunity to desert. Gilbert wrote in his journal:<br />
<br />
<br />
Before I left England I had entered into the usual obligation, binding myself in the forfeiture of a very considerable sum, not to suffer any of the convicts under my charge to escape, not to bring any away with me; it cannot therefore be supposed that, with such a risk, I should permit any of them to come on board; and being equally conscious of not having given any room for such a suspicion with regard to the seamen, I immediately assembled the officers of the ship, who joined with me in declaring that we knew of none; and in order to remove all doubt, I requested that a thorough search be made. This was done; and the lieutenant, not being able to find any, departed. At eleven he returned, accompanied by three petty officers, and made another search, but with no better success.<ref name="ftn63"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.2-3.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Gilbert wrote of this matter at some length, because when they arrived at Lord Howe Island a week later, they discovered two convicts secreted on board, ‘unknown to me and to my officers’, and since it was too late to turn back, ‘I protested against their conduct, and the consequences that might result from their desertion, and resolved to make an affidavit of the truth of this assertion at the first opportunity that offered for so doing.’<ref name="ftn64"><sup>Thomas Gilbert, ''Voyage from New South Wales to Canton. . ''., London: J. Debrett, 1789, pp.14-15.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
''Second Fleet''<br />
<br />
<br />
In the case of the Second Fleet, Donald Trail (when in charge of the ''Surprize'') had insisted that he must have control since he had given a bond for them. On the 19<sup>th</sup> of November 1789, Trail wrote to Camden, Calvert & King, reporting that Captain Hill, the senior military officer who was about to come on board, had ‘threatened to pull the contractors by the nose’.<br />
<br />
<br />
He acquainted me last night that when he some on board he should consider the convicts as his prisoners, and not under my regulation or command, that he should order them out of irons, or in irons, as he thought proper, and the keys of the hatches in his possession. My answer was that I had given bond for them, and that he should not have the keys of the hatches, except he took them by force, and that superior to mine, which he positively said he would, or the ship from me, if I opposed him. You had better have this point cleared up or you must expect the most serious consequence, for whilst I have a man to stand by me, I will maintain the command I suppose to be invested in me. As for the Navy Agent, he says he shall have nothing to do with the convicts. . .<ref name="ftn65"><sup>TNA T1/674/268.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
The matter was later resolved in favour of the contractors and the Masters.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Ganges''<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1796, there was yet another dispute between the ship’s officers and the military officers over control of the ship, in which the Ensign Brock threatened the Second Mate. Patrickson, the Captain, raised the question of authority as reflecting on his control over the convicts.<br />
<br />
<br />
12 September 1796 – Patrickson wrote to James Duncan, the agent (and contractor):<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Honourable Board would only place sufficient confidence in me (and I am answerable both as owner and having signed the bonds for the safe delivery of the convicts), I would undertake under yet heavier penalties to land them safe rather than suffer, or indeed, run the risk, which the interference of such a character might occasion. . .<br />
<br />
<br />
He understood that there was no one who would verify Mr Broke’s (Brock’s) version of events, except his wife. Even the surgeon, appointed by the government, supported Mr Morris’s version.<br />
<br />
<br />
I shall only state what relates to the boatswain of the ship, who might perhaps side with the officers of the ship, especially when the officer commanding was driven with violence off the quarter-deck, but Mr Broke had, I understand, previously threatened him with corporal punishment, without any permission on the part of the officers of the ship.<ref name="ftn66"><sup>HRNSW 3:140-141.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
14 September 1796 – Lieut. Down to the Board. He had been on board the ''Ganges'', accompanied by Captain Winckworth of ''HMS Savage ''to inquire into a dispute between Ensign Brock and the ship’s Master and officers. From the evidence available, he felt that Ensign Brock had been greatly insulted by the Second Mate, Mr Jacks, that his life had been threatened by the boatswain, Richard Burn, who seemed to be the instigator of all the disturbances, and ought not remain in the ship. Mr Morris, who as master of the ship, was told that he would be protested against if the ''Ganges'' did not proceed with the convoy, set out last night for London.<ref name="ftn67"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><nowiki> [This is perplexing, since Patrickson was the Master.]</nowiki><br />
<br />
<br />
15 September 1796 – The Transport Board advised Mr Duncan of Lieut. Down’s report. The Board thought Burn should leave the ship. They were surprised that the master should leave the ship and go to London at a time when the vessel was due to sail with the first favourable wind.<ref name="ftn68"><sup>TNA ADM108/39/315.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
21 September 1796 – Surgeon Mileham wrote his account of the above events. He regarded Mr Jacks as without fault. Brock, on the other hand, ‘without a doubt is a very dangerous person to go on the voyage.’ Reports of the sailors abusing the soldiers were false. He had never seen anything but harmony among them. Mileham wrote to King saying that at that stage he was resolved not to go on the voyage.<ref name="ftn69"><sup>HRNSW 3:143-144.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
25 September 1796 – Lieutenant-Colonel Grose (the arrogant buffoon who commanded the NSW Corps) went on board the ''Ganges'' and conducted an inquiry. Brock was on shore, and Grose called together his sergeant and the soldiers. They had no complaints against the sailors – there had been no disputes. The officers of the ship reported likewise.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Chief and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mate said that Brock had been better behaved in recent days and they were inclined to forget what had happened, as long as he was instructed not to interfere with them in future.<br />
<br />
<br />
Grose reported that part of the dispute arose over the presence of a woman on the quarter-deck. Brock had insisted she should not be there, and Jacks had insisted she should. When Jacks moved to fire the signal, Brock had concluded that it was to be fired into his cabin and placed a sentinel over it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Brock told Grose that he had requested of Admiral Peyton that his conduct be investigated. Captain Winkworth and some other officers had been sent on board, and Grose believed a report would be sent to the Transport Office. Grose said it was not in his power to resolve the matter completely.<ref name="ftn70"><sup>HRNSW 3:141-143.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
29 September 1796 – M. Lewis (War Office) to John King (Home Office).<br />
<br />
<br />
Your letter of the 22<sup>nd</sup> inst. with the enclosures (which are herewith returned) having been laid before the D. of Y. & H.R.H. having directed that the same should be transmitted to M.G. Cuyler, the G.O. commanding at Portsmouth, for him to examine into the circumstances of Ensign Brock’s conduct, I am directed by the S. at W. to send for the D. of Portland’s information a copy of a letter received by Col. Brownrigg from M.G. Cuyler, together with a copy of one enclosed from Lt. Col. Grose, Commandant of the New South Wales Corps, on the subject of the complaint made against Ensign Brock.<ref name="ftn71"><sup>TNA WO4/845/127-128.</sup></ref><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<references/></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=Early_Australian_Convict_Transportation&diff=536Early Australian Convict Transportation2016-03-25T23:59:30Z<p>Admin: /* What's New */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of the 162,000 convicts sent to Australia between 1787 and 1868 were transported by private contractors. And for the first three decades, from 1787 until around 1815, these contractors, and their agents on board the ships - the ships' officers, the surgeons, and the crew members - were also responsible for the day-to-day management of the convicts. Thereafter, the ships' owners and operators continued to play a significant role in the process of transportation, but day-to-day management of the prisoners themselves was primarily the responsibility of government-appointed surgeon superintendents.<br />
<br />
With the exception of Charles Bateson in his 1959 classic, ''The Convict Ships'', and Michael Flynn, in the introduction to his biographical database of the Second Fleet (1993), historians have paid little attention to the emergence and development of the transportation system.<br />
<br />
No one has closely studied the chain of contracts that cascaded from the Navy Board (and from 1794, the Transport Board) to the convict contractor to the ship owners, to the ship's master to the individual members of the crew, and how these contracts were enforced. To date, no historian has sought to explain the legal framework that allowed private contractors to discipline convicts at sea, or the system of law and administrative practice that enabled convicts to protest at ill-treatment.<br />
<br />
There is still no definitive account of life among the convicts on the lower deck - how the convicts were housed; how they were clothed and fed; what their toilet arrangements were; how (and how often) the prisoners washed; what arrangements were made for the sick; what private property they took with them; how some of them were able to buy provisions and trade goods on the outward voyage; how some were employed by the ships' officers throughout the voyage. . .<br />
<br />
Little is known of the early convict contractors, and what little has been published has often been wrong. Not much is known about the ships themselves or the ships' officers. And virtually nothing has been written about the homeward voyage, which was essential to making the voyage to Botany Bay a commercial proposition. One of the consequences of this latter oversight is that historians have failed to appreciate the dangers associated with a voyage to and from the Antipodes in the late 18th century - of the 28 vessels that carried convicts and stores to New South Wales in the first five years of European settlement, one in four never made it home. <br />
<br />
In recent years, a number of academic studies have looked at mortality rates, but (influenced by Bateson) they have focused on 1815 as the turning point, the year after surgeon superintendents were appointed. Recent research by the moderator of this site and some of his academic colleagues, has shown that while mortality rates did fall after 1815, they fell a great deal more around 1800, following a series of reforms initiated by an Irish surgeon and inspector of convict ships, Jeremiah Fitzpatrick.<br />
<br />
This wiki is a study of how convict transportation actually worked in the first decade and a half, from 1787 (when the First Fleet sailed) until 1800. The sample of 59 convict transports and store ships is small enough to identify every document relating to these vessels, and large enough to provide detailed insight into how the system worked and how it changed over time. <br />
<br />
It draws upon the research for a forthcoming book on the Botany Bay trade in these early years, and seeks to make available to professional researchers and family historians, the results of more than fifteen years of research in British and Australian archives. This vast archive of material will be published on this site over time.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess<br />
<br />
<br />
''Gary L. Sturgess holds the New South Wales Premier's Chair of Public Service Delivery at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and the University of New South Wales. He is also Professor of Public Service Innovation at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. He is a leading international authority on the design and management of public service markets, and brings to the study of convict transportation a practical understanding of the design and management of effective public service contracts. He is the former Director General of the NSW Cabinet Office and was awarded the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to government.'' <br />
<br />
''His great, great grandfather, James Sturgess, was sent to Australia in 1847 for stealing books. Three of his ancestors - two convicts and a marine - sailed to Australia with the First Fleet.''<br />
<br />
Gary Sturgess can be contacted at '''gary@sturgess.org'''<br />
<br />
== What I'm Reading ==<br />
<br />
'''Paul A. Van Dyke and Maria Kar-Wing Mok, "Images of the Canton Factories, 1760-1822", Kong Kong University Press, 2015.'''<br />
<br />
For more than a decade, Paul Van Dyke has been writing the story of the small group of Chinese merchants which had a monopoly on dealing with the European merchants who traded with Canton from the early 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. None of their records have survived, but Paul has been reconstructing the history of the various houses by trawling through the papers of the European East India Companies, which have survived, in vast quantities.<br />
<br />
Around a half of the convict transports and storeships that sailed to New South Wales in the decade and a half prior to 1800, returned via China, taking home a cargo of tea on behalf of the East India Company, so the significance of his work for our understanding of the Botany Bay trade is considerable.<br />
<br />
In this book, Paul and his colleague, Maria Kar-Wing Mok, a curator at the Hong Kong Museum of Art, have used paintings made by European and Chinese artists for the export market to make sense of the European factories at Canton. They are not the first historians to work with these images, but Paul's deep knowledge of the European archives has enabled them to make sense of inconsistencies that defeated earlier researchers. As a result, they have been able to date the various paintings more accurately (and identify those where the artists have taken licence), and construct a more detailed history of how the European uses of this neighbourhood changed over time,<br />
<br />
I first saw this material at a conference at Sun Yat Sen University in Guangzhou in November 2013, where Paul and Maria used powerpoint to present many of the images that have now been published in the book. It had a profound impact on me, and without fully being aware of it, I borrowed the technique when I was studying the early 19th century paintings of the west side of Sydney Cove for my work on Phillip's landing place.<br />
<br />
The European ships never made it as far as Canton - they were anchored at Whampoa, 20 kilometres down river, where the cargoes were loaded and unloaded. Crews would spend some of their liberty at Canton, but most of their time was spent on the ships and the nearby islands at Whampoa. The good news is that Maria has also been doing work on the 18th and 19th century paintings of Whampoa, which may enable us to better understand how the Canton trade operated.<br />
<br />
Paul's final book on the Cohong, which will cover the period when the Botany Bay ships visited, will be published shortly. <br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 22 March 2016<br />
<br />
== What's New ==<br />
<br />
* [[Botany Baymen]]<br />
* [[Letters of Marque]]<br />
* [[First Fleet]]<br />
* [[First Fleet & the Abolition Movement]]<br />
* [[Counterfeit Coins]]<br />
* [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
* [[Second Fleet]]<br />
* [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Irons]]<br />
* [[Trade in Services]]<br />
* [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
* [[Valuables]]<br />
* [[Seasickness]]<br />
* [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
* [[Convict Rights]]<br />
* [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
* [[Diet Tables]]<br />
* [[Insurance]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Alexander and the Friendship to Batavia]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Charlotte and Scarborough to China]]<br />
* [[Voyage of the Lady Penrhyn from Port Jackson to Macau]]<br />
* [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
* [[Commodore of the Fleet]]<br />
* [[William Matthews]]<br />
* [[Camden, Calvert & King - First Fleet]]<br />
* [[John Marshall's Journal]]<br />
* [[Naval Agents]]<br />
* [[George Teer]]<br />
* [[John Shortland]]<br />
* [[John Shapcote]]<br />
* [[Daniel Woodriff]]<br />
* [[Evan Nepean]]<br />
* [[Charles Middleton]]<br />
* [[Thomas Shelton]]<br />
* [[William Chinnery]]<br />
* [[Navy Board Staff]]<br />
* [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
* [[Ship Logs]]<br />
* [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! [[The Ships]]<br />
! [[The Voyage]]<br />
! [[Managing the Ships]]<br />
! [[Convict Life]]<br />
! [[Governance]]<br />
! [[Contracts]]<br />
! [[People]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Botany Baymen]]<br />
| [[Prison to Ship]]<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
| [[Prison Layout]]<br />
| [[Convict Rights]]<br />
| [[Transportation Contracts]]<br />
| [[Convict Contractors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[First Fleet]]<br />
| [[First Leg]]<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
| [[Provisions]]<br />
| [[Legal Authority over the Convicts]]<br />
| row 2, cell 6<br />
| [[Crew]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Lady Juliana]]<br />
| [[Madeira]]<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
| [[Water]]<br />
| [[Self-Government by the Convicts]]<br />
| row 3, cell 6<br />
| [[Masters]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Second Fleet]]<br />
| [[Tenerife]]<br />
| row 4, cell 3<br />
| [[Clothing]]<br />
| [[Diet Tables]]<br />
| row 4, cell 6<br />
| [[Merchants]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Third Fleet]]<br />
| [[Second Leg]]<br />
| row 5, cell 3<br />
| [[Bathing]]<br />
| row 5, cell 5<br />
| row 5, cell 6<br />
| [[Naval Agents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Pitt]]<br />
| [[Rio de Janeiro]]<br />
| row 6, cell 3<br />
| [[Toilets]]<br />
| row 6, cell 5<br />
| row 6, cell 6<br />
| [[Public Officials]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Britannia (1792)]]<br />
| [[Third Leg]]<br />
| row 7, cell 3<br />
| [[Cleaning the Prison]]<br />
| row 7, cell 5<br />
| row 7, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Owners]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Royal Admiral (1792)]]<br />
| [[Cape of Good Hope]]<br />
| row 8, cell 3<br />
| [[Disease]]<br />
| row 8, cell 5<br />
| row 8, cell 6<br />
| [[Ship Brokers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Kitty]]<br />
| [[Crossing the Southern Ocean]]<br />
| [[Insurance]]<br />
| [[Seasickness]]<br />
| row 9, cell 5<br />
| row 9, cell 6<br />
| [[Soldiers]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Bellona]]<br />
| [[Port Jackson]]<br />
| row 10, cell 3<br />
| [[Time on Deck]]<br />
| row 10, cell 5<br />
| row 10, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeon Superintendents]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Boddington]]<br />
| row 11, cell 2<br />
| row 11, cell 3<br />
| [[Convict Irons]]<br />
| row 11, cell 5<br />
| row 11, cell 6<br />
| [[Surgeons]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sugar Cane]]<br />
| row 12, cell 2<br />
| row 12, cell 3<br />
| [[Private Property]]<br />
| row 12, cell 5<br />
| row 12, cell 6<br />
| row 12, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[William]]<br />
| row 13, cell 2<br />
| row 13, cell 3<br />
| [[Valuables]]<br />
| row 13, cell 5<br />
| row 13, cell 6<br />
| row 13, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Indispensable (1793)]]<br />
| row 14, cell 2<br />
| row 14, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Services]]<br />
| row 14, cell 5<br />
| row 14, cell 6<br />
| row 14, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Speedy (1793)]]<br />
| row 15, cell 2<br />
| row 15, cell 3<br />
| [[Sexual Activity]]<br />
| row 15, cell 5<br />
| row 15, cell 6<br />
| row 15, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Resolution)]]<br />
| row 16, cell 2<br />
| row 16, cell 3<br />
| [[Trade in Food and Clothing]]<br />
| row 16, cell 5<br />
| row 16, cell 6<br />
| row 16, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Salamander (1794)]]<br />
| row 17, cell 2<br />
| row 17, cell 3<br />
| [[Sounds of a Convict Ship]]<br />
| row 17, cell 5<br />
| row 17, cell 6<br />
| row 17, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Surprize (1794)]]<br />
| row 18, cell 2<br />
| row 18, cell 3<br />
| row 18, cell 4<br />
| row 18, cell 5<br />
| row 18, cell 6<br />
| row 18, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Young William]]<br />
| row 19, cell 2<br />
| row 19, cell 3<br />
| row 19, cell 4<br />
| row 19, cell 5<br />
| row 19, cell 6<br />
| row 19, cell 7<br />
|-<br />
| [[Sovereign]]<br />
| row 20, cell 2<br />
| row 20, cell 3<br />
| row 20, cell 4<br />
| row 20, cell 5<br />
| row 20, cell 6<br />
| row 20, cell 7<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
== Sources ==<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| [[Ship Logs]]<br />
| row 1, cell 2<br />
| row 1, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Convict Journals & Memoirs]]<br />
| row 2, cell 2<br />
| row 2, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
| [[Personal Journals]]<br />
| row 3, cell 2<br />
| row 3, cell 3<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=John_Marshall%27s_Journal&diff=535John Marshall's Journal2016-03-25T23:58:31Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Background'''<br />
<br />
John Marshall's descendants hold a copy of a journal or (more probably) memoirs which provide some detail of his life, including the two voyages to New South Wales. To date, they have declined to make a complete copy of the memoirs available, but extracts have been published online, and in the late 1920s, a member of the family published some of the details in a work of fiction (Amy Walton, 'Susan', London: Blackie & Son Limited, c.1929).<br />
<br />
What little we know already is invaluable in providing background to an important figure in the early years of convict transportation, and from 'Susan' we learn previously unknown details about the planned mutiny on the Scarborough (1790) and how it was exposed.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
'''John Marshall's Journal'''<br />
<br />
The Journal purports to have been written by John Marshall when he was 69, that is, in 1817. The name Ann Bedford (one of his descendants) appears on the flyleaf.<br />
<br />
Summary of early life by a family member: His father Robert died in 1755. Marshall states that his elder brother Thomas lived with an uncle at "Cape --------- ", North Carolina, in America". There appears to have been two Uncles, one in London, & one in America. Both helped him out considerably. The London based one appears to have been a shipowner, who had a son, also at sea to whom he naturally showed preference. JM referred to the Uncle in America as also the Uncle of the London cousin. Ergo the two Uncles appear to have been brothers. The American Uncle was also a shipowner and a prosperous merchant. On one voyage there JM was advised by his Uncle that his (JM's) brother (Thomas) was unlikely to get higher than boatswain. He also referred to being wrecked on a shoal called the Frying Pan, about 21 miles off land after leaving his Uncle at Cape ----- . This seems to be about 1774-1775.<br />
<br />
The cargo he was carrying at the time of the shipwreck was pitch & tar & supplies for London. This cargo belonged to the American uncle. Another cargo referred to is timber. Apparently JM's brother Thomas was not at Cape Fear when JM arrived, but on a voyage to the West Indies with a cargo of timber.<br />
<br />
Extract from the manuscript (probably relating to 1780):<br />
<br />
"The next day, I got myself shipped, as chief mate, in a ship belonging to Scarborough; in the transport service: we took in provisions at Deptford, & sailed to Portsmouth, to join Admiral Rodney, to go out to the West Indies. We sailed for St Lucia, where we arrived safe."<br />
<br />
Extract from the manuscript (1781-82):<br />
<br />
". . . & bought a fine cutter, of 108 tons; of which I took one quarter part, for which share I paid £650: Having Admiral Young for my good friend, I applied to him, who got her into the service for me. I should have done well, had the war continued. I had her only 16 months, when peace came; & my cutter was discharged, out of the King’s service. She was then, laid up, for sale, in the Surrey canal; & there she remained for one year, when she was sold, for the small sum of £800. This was a great loss to me."<br />
<br />
Extract from ‘Susan’ by Amy Walton, another family member, published in 1888. This account is based on the Journal but fictionalised and Marshall is presented as Captain Enticknapp, but a note at the end of the chapter reports that it was based on Marshall’s journal. (Marshall was not shot by convicts on this voyage, but in a later voyage when the ship on which he was a passenger was attacked by a privateer). This relates to the convict mutiny on the Scarborough in 1789:<br />
<br />
"It was in the spring of 1789, when he had been at home with us for a month, that he received orders to start for the colony with a second lot of 200 convicts, some to be taken on board at Woolwich, and some at Portsmouth; he was afterwards to proceed to China for a cargo of tea, and would therefore be away a long, long time. The whole household was sorry for this, because we all missed his cheerful companionship; but my mother grieved most of all, for she understood better than we did, the dangers he would go through, and felt each time he left her, that she might never see him again. But she showed her trouble as little as she could until he was out of her sight, so that he might go on his way with a good heart, and not be too much cast down at leaving us alone.<br />
<br />
“Well, he got down to Portsmouth, and the convicts came on board, looking at the first glance all very much alike, with their cropped heads and their prison clothes. But this was not really so, there was a great difference between them; for some were men of education and some were ignorant; some were brutal and wicked by nature, and others only weak and foolish; some were stupid, and others clever, and each of these things stamps its own expression on the face and form.<br />
<br />
“As my father stood on the quay watching the men as they passed him, someone tapped him on the shoulder, and turning he saw a certain Major Grose standing there.<br />
<br />
“‘Captain Enticknapp,’ he said; ‘a word with you about one of those men. Notice the one standing fourth from us now; his name is Birt. I know him well and his father too. He can be trusted; it is misfortune rather than vice which has brought him to this evil pass. If you can, allow him some privileges, and show him kindness during the voyage. You will do me a service if you will bear this in mind.’<br />
<br />
“Now my father was a man only too ready to think well of others, and to do them a kindness if possible, so he willingly promised, and observed Birt closely <br />
that he might know him again. He was a slight young fellow of about twenty, with delicate features and large melancholy eyes which he bent on the ground; so shame-faced and sad looking, and such a contrast in his bearing to the recklessness of many of the other men, that my father’s heart was at once touched with pity for him.<br />
<br />
“On the voyage he took every possible occasion of being kind to Birt, and allowed him the privilege of being on deck all day instead of only two hours like the rest of the convicts. He also lent him books, encouraged him to talk of his troubles, and by degrees learned the whole story of his misfortunes. Now, in doing this my father became fond of him, for to bestow benefits on anyone is a sure way to make a friendly feeling towards them, and as for Birt he would have done anything to serve the captain and show his gratitude. Very soon this chance was given to him.<br />
<br />
“At night the convicts were all locked down under hatches and sentinels placed over them. The men lay six in a berth, and it so happened that one of these disclosed to Birt a plot that forty of them had made and signed with their blood. Would he join them and have his share of the prize?<br />
<br />
“Now Birt dared not say no, for he feared for his life amongst those desperate men.<br />
<br />
“‘Before I say that I will,’ he replied, ‘I must know your plan. How is it possible to seize the ship when such a good look-out is kept?’<br />
<br />
“Then the convict told him all that had been settled by the mutineers. At four o’clock when the hatches were raised most of the officers went to their cabins, and there would be more than twenty convicts on deck who were all in the plot. They would then knock down the sentinels, get possession of the quarter-deck, and seize the firearms which were ready loaded. They would next release their other comrades and alter the course of the ship.<br />
<br />
“‘But what,’ asked Birt, ‘will you do with the captain, officers, and soldiers?’<br />
<br />
“‘We will kill the captain,’ replied the wretch, ‘and put his head at the main topgallant masthead—and we will put the first-mate’s head at the mizzen, and the boatswain’s at the fore. The other convicts who are not with us in the matter we shall put on shore at some island, and leave them to shift for themselves, they are worth nothing. The ship is a good prize, for the captain has a large sum of money on board to take out for the East India Company. These things done, we shall kill the great hog, and with plenty of drink we shall have a good time of it. Do you join us?’<br />
<br />
“Birt consented, for he dared not do otherwise; but all night long he thought, and thought, and wondered how to get the plot to the captain’s knowledge. He was determined to save his life and that of the crew; but it was not an easy matter, for he knew that the convicts would now watch him narrowly and that he must not be seen talking to any of the officers. The only thing to do was to put it down in writing and get it somehow into their hands. But how to write it, when he was never a moment alone? and it must be done the next day.<br />
<br />
“At last after much puzzling he hit upon a plan.<br />
<br />
“In the morning when he went on deck he washed a shirt and took it up to the foretop to dry. Now the foretop is a place high up in the rigging of the ship, a very giddy height indeed, and when a man is there he is really almost out of sight and it is impossible to see what he is doing from the deck. Birt had a little pocket book with him, and in it, as he sat on the foretop, he wrote down all he knew about the intended mutiny. When he went below he hoped to get a chance of slipping it into the captain’s hand, or of putting it where he would be likely to find it.<br />
<br />
“But luck was against him, for he could not get near the captain the whole of that day, and there were keen eyes always fastened upon him by the convicts, who were on deck by fifty at a time, and watched each other closely for fear of treachery. Amongst each fifty there were always some who were in the plot, and if they had suspected Birt of betraying them they would have made short work of him, and this he knew very well. Evening came, and still he had been able to do nothing. The next morning at four o’clock the bloody deed was to be done. He paced the deck to and fro, to and fro, almost in despair, and yet determined to venture something for the captain’s sake. Then he noticed that the first-mate was in the hold, serving out water, and suddenly an idea came into Birt’s head. He pretended to stumble, threw himself right down the hatchway as though by accident, and fell a distance of sixteen feet into the hold. As you may imagine all was immediately stir and excitement, for at first they thought he was killed—and, indeed, he was badly bruised, having fallen on to a water-cask. In the bustle, however, he managed to slip the book into the mate’s hand, and the thing was done. The surgeon was sent for and they got him up on deck, where, while his hurts were being looked to, he had the satisfaction of seeing the mate go aft and then into the captain’s cabin.<br />
<br />
“Promptly the soldiers were ordered up, but when the convicts on deck found their plot discovered they did not yield without a struggle. It was a short but a violent one, for in the confusion they got hold of some fire arms and fought desperately. The captain was twice wounded, and it was then that the old watch you see there had its share in saving his life. For the bullet, striking against the case and passing through it, was thus lessened in force, and did not reach a vital part of the body. It was, nevertheless, a serious hurt, and caused him much suffering, for it was some days before the bit of metal could be extracted from the wound.<br />
<br />
“Meanwhile the convicts, being overpowered, were secured under hatches again, and the captain then made Birt point out the ringleaders and the most desperate of the men, which he did to the number of thirteen. These were placed in irons for the rest of the voyage, and when the vessel arrived at Port Jackson it was supposed they would have been hanged. But the governor declaring that it was not in his power to do so, they were registered to be kept in irons, chained two and two together, all their lives long.<br />
<br />
“And thus this wicked plot was found out, and those wicked men punished, and thus it pleased Heaven to preserve your great-grandfather’s life—first by reason of the gratitude and devotion of Mr. Birt, and secondly through his stout old watch which did him good service and turned aside the enemy’s bullet.”<br />
Aunt Hannah paused, and looked up at the picture again.<br />
<br />
“But,” said Susan, “what became of Mr. Birt?”<br />
<br />
“He was pardoned,” replied my aunt, “on the representation of my father—because of the service he had rendered in saving the ship and crew at the risk of his own life.”<br />
<br />
“I’m glad of that,” said Sophia Jane; “because it was so very good of him to tumble down the hatchway.”<br />
<br />
“He never returned to England,” continued Aunt Hannah, “but settled in China, where I believe he prospered and became at last a rich man. My father often heard from him and always spoke of him with affection.” (Amy Walton, 'Susan', Chap.VII)<br />
<br />
Extract from the Journal (relating to 1793-94):<br />
<br />
"As my nephew was out of employ, I asked him if he would become part owner with me in a vessel, in the Newfoundland trade; having agreed with him, we purchased a small brig for £500: of about 100 tons. We fitted her up, & intended to have gone in her myself, to fish on the banks of Newfoundland, & had cleared out at the Custom House accordingly; meaning to sail the next day: but meeting a gentleman, on chance whom I knew; who told me he had a fine ship, in good employ; if I would take the command of her; she was bound to China, & to sail under Genoese colours, from Ostend. Having agreed to the offer, I altered the papers of the brig, & sent my nephew out in her; my new ship was called the Renommee. We took in, at London, 300 tons of lead, & then sailed for Ostend, where we completed our cargo, this was in the year 1794. We made the voyage, out & home, without any accident, in 18 months." <br />
<br />
In his Journal, Marshall claimed that he left the ship at St Bartholomew, believing his presence on board would endanger the ship and her crew (who were Genoese), since the port was blockaded by the French. According to this account, written by a family member, he took passage home on the Diana (which did not sail until 1797). [This is incorrect. He had returned earlier, but it was while sailing on the Diana in 1797 that he was shot during an attack by a privateer.]<br />
<br />
Extract from the Journal, relating to 1797-98:<br />
<br />
"My business at London being finished, I went home to my wife & family at Ramsgate. After being there some time, I was advised to leave the sea, & endeavour to get a living on shore. My friends persuaded me to build a windmill for grinding corn, & thought that I would get a good livelihood. I took some time to consider of this, &, at length, acceded to their advice. As I was quite a stranger to the business, I thought it would be better to have a partner who would understand it better than myself; accordingly I found a man to my satisfaction; & built a good large mill with three pairs of stones, & everything that was necessary to set him a-going.<br />
<br />
"We had scarcely got to work before wheat began to rise from 40 shillings up to ten pounds per quarter; which made it all the worse for us, as we had but little money to go on with. My partner wishing to give up the business, I took the mill to myself, striving to get on as well as I could, I had built a house close to my mill, that I might be handy to my work; this took up the most part of my money, that I should have had in the business; I was therefore obliged to mortgage the mill for £800. I laboured on for five years, but finding I was losing something considerable, yearly; I thought it would be for the best to sell the mill: which I accordingly did, at the loss of £200. I next set upon a bake house; thinking to bring my son up to some trade, whereby he might get his living, after my death, for I had nothing to leave him. We carried on the business for two years, & were doing well; by this time my son was able, with the help of a good foreman, to carry on the business, but never liked it, as it did not agree with him. In the meantime, I had an offer to go as commander of a ship to Jamaica; which I accepted & took charge of her. In the meantime I had sold my home to the Duchess of Sussex.<br />
Around 1800 – Marshall planned to command of yet another vessel, with the intention of sailing to Jamaica. It is unclear if this happened.<br />
<br />
"In the meantime, I had an offer to go as commander of a ship to Jamaica; which I accepted & took charge of her. In the meantime I had sold my home to the Duchess of Sussex."<br />
<br />
The following appears as a postscript to the Journal, written in the same hand as the name Ann Bedford on the flyleaf:<br />
Inscription on back of old watch<br />
<br />
‘On the 4th February 1797 10.00 o’clock A.M.: Capt. John Marshall on board “The Diana” of 14 guns & 24 men, had a ball pass through his body & another through his watch & thigh in beating off a French Privateer of 16 guns & 92 men.’<br />
<br />
[[Category:John Marshall]]</div>Adminhttp://convicts.sturgess.org/index.php?title=John_Marshall%27s_Journal&diff=534John Marshall's Journal2016-03-25T23:58:03Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''Background'''<br />
<br />
John Marshall's descendants hold a copy of a journal or (more probably) memoirs which provide some detail of his life, including the two voyages to New South Wales. To date, they have declined to make a complete copy of the memoirs available, but extracts have been published online, and in the late 1920s, a member of the family published some of the details in a work of fiction (Amy Walton, 'Susan', London: Blackie & Son Limited, c.1929).<br />
<br />
What little we know already is invaluable in providing background to an important figure in the early years of convict transportation, and from 'Susan' we learn previously unknown details about the planned mutiny on the Scarborough (1790) and how it was exposed.<br />
<br />
- Gary L. Sturgess, 26 March 2016<br />
<br />
'''John Marshall's Journal'''<br />
<br />
The Journal purports to have been written by John Marshall when he was 69, that is, in 1817. The name Ann Bedford (one of his descendants) appears on the flyleaf.<br />
<br />
Summary of early life by a family member: His father Robert died in 1755. Marshall states that his elder brother Thomas lived with an uncle at "Cape --------- ", North Carolina, in America". There appears to have been two Uncles, one in London, & one in America. Both helped him out considerably. The London based one appears to have been a shipowner, who had a son, also at sea to whom he naturally showed preference. JM referred to the Uncle in America as also the Uncle of the London cousin. Ergo the two Uncles appear to have been brothers. The American Uncle was also a shipowner and a prosperous merchant. On one voyage there JM was advised by his Uncle that his (JM's) brother (Thomas) was unlikely to get higher than boatswain. He also referred to being wrecked on a shoal called the Frying Pan, about 21 miles off land after leaving his Uncle at Cape ----- . This seems to be about 1774-1775.<br />
<br />
The cargo he was carrying at the time of the shipwreck was pitch & tar & supplies for London. This cargo belonged to the American uncle. Another cargo referred to is timber. Apparently JM's brother Thomas was not at Cape Fear when JM arrived, but on a voyage to the West Indies with a cargo of timber.<br />
<br />
Extract from the manuscript (probably relating to 1780):<br />
<br />
"The next day, I got myself shipped, as chief mate, in a ship belonging to Scarborough; in the transport service: we took in provisions at Deptford, & sailed to Portsmouth, to join Admiral Rodney, to go out to the West Indies. We sailed for St Lucia, where we arrived safe."<br />
<br />
Extract from the manuscript (1781-82):<br />
<br />
". . . & bought a fine cutter, of 108 tons; of which I took one quarter part, for which share I paid £650: Having Admiral Young for my good friend, I applied to him, who got her into the service for me. I should have done well, had the war continued. I had her only 16 months, when peace came; & my cutter was discharged, out of the King’s service. She was then, laid up, for sale, in the Surrey canal; & there she remained for one year, when she was sold, for the small sum of £800. This was a great loss to me."<br />
<br />
Extract from ‘Susan’ by Amy Walton, another family member, published in 1888. This account is based on the Journal but fictionalised and Marshall is presented as Captain Enticknapp, but a note at the end of the chapter reports that it was based on Marshall’s journal. (Marshall was not shot by convicts on this voyage, but in a later voyage when the ship on which he was a passenger was attacked by a privateer). This relates to the convict mutiny on the Scarborough in 1789:<br />
<br />
"It was in the spring of 1789, when he had been at home with us for a month, that he received orders to start for the colony with a second lot of 200 convicts, some to be taken on board at Woolwich, and some at Portsmouth; he was afterwards to proceed to China for a cargo of tea, and would therefore be away a long, long time. The whole household was sorry for this, because we all missed his cheerful companionship; but my mother grieved most of all, for she understood better than we did, the dangers he would go through, and felt each time he left her, that she might never see him again. But she showed her trouble as little as she could until he was out of her sight, so that he might go on his way with a good heart, and not be too much cast down at leaving us alone.<br />
<br />
“Well, he got down to Portsmouth, and the convicts came on board, looking at the first glance all very much alike, with their cropped heads and their prison clothes. But this was not really so, there was a great difference between them; for some were men of education and some were ignorant; some were brutal and wicked by nature, and others only weak and foolish; some were stupid, and others clever, and each of these things stamps its own expression on the face and form.<br />
<br />
“As my father stood on the quay watching the men as they passed him, someone tapped him on the shoulder, and turning he saw a certain Major Grose standing there.<br />
<br />
“‘Captain Enticknapp,’ he said; ‘a word with you about one of those men. Notice the one standing fourth from us now; his name is Birt. I know him well and his father too. He can be trusted; it is misfortune rather than vice which has brought him to this evil pass. If you can, allow him some privileges, and show him kindness during the voyage. You will do me a service if you will bear this in mind.’<br />
<br />
“Now my father was a man only too ready to think well of others, and to do them a kindness if possible, so he willingly promised, and observed Birt closely <br />
that he might know him again. He was a slight young fellow of about twenty, with delicate features and large melancholy eyes which he bent on the ground; so shame-faced and sad looking, and such a contrast in his bearing to the recklessness of many of the other men, that my father’s heart was at once touched with pity for him.<br />
<br />
“On the voyage he took every possible occasion of being kind to Birt, and allowed him the privilege of being on deck all day instead of only two hours like the rest of the convicts. He also lent him books, encouraged him to talk of his troubles, and by degrees learned the whole story of his misfortunes. Now, in doing this my father became fond of him, for to bestow benefits on anyone is a sure way to make a friendly feeling towards them, and as for Birt he would have done anything to serve the captain and show his gratitude. Very soon this chance was given to him.<br />
<br />
“At night the convicts were all locked down under hatches and sentinels placed over them. The men lay six in a berth, and it so happened that one of these disclosed to Birt a plot that forty of them had made and signed with their blood. Would he join them and have his share of the prize?<br />
<br />
“Now Birt dared not say no, for he feared for his life amongst those desperate men.<br />
<br />
“‘Before I say that I will,’ he replied, ‘I must know your plan. How is it possible to seize the ship when such a good look-out is kept?’<br />
<br />
“Then the convict told him all that had been settled by the mutineers. At four o’clock when the hatches were raised most of the officers went to their cabins, and there would be more than twenty convicts on deck who were all in the plot. They would then knock down the sentinels, get possession of the quarter-deck, and seize the firearms which were ready loaded. They would next release their other comrades and alter the course of the ship.<br />
<br />
“‘But what,’ asked Birt, ‘will you do with the captain, officers, and soldiers?’<br />
<br />
“‘We will kill the captain,’ replied the wretch, ‘and put his head at the main topgallant masthead—and we will put the first-mate’s head at the mizzen, and the boatswain’s at the fore. The other convicts who are not with us in the matter we shall put on shore at some island, and leave them to shift for themselves, they are worth nothing. The ship is a good prize, for the captain has a large sum of money on board to take out for the East India Company. These things done, we shall kill the great hog, and with plenty of drink we shall have a good time of it. Do you join us?’<br />
<br />
“Birt consented, for he dared not do otherwise; but all night long he thought, and thought, and wondered how to get the plot to the captain’s knowledge. He was determined to save his life and that of the crew; but it was not an easy matter, for he knew that the convicts would now watch him narrowly and that he must not be seen talking to any of the officers. The only thing to do was to put it down in writing and get it somehow into their hands. But how to write it, when he was never a moment alone? and it must be done the next day.<br />
<br />
“At last after much puzzling he hit upon a plan.<br />
<br />
“In the morning when he went on deck he washed a shirt and took it up to the foretop to dry. Now the foretop is a place high up in the rigging of the ship, a very giddy height indeed, and when a man is there he is really almost out of sight and it is impossible to see what he is doing from the deck. Birt had a little pocket book with him, and in it, as he sat on the foretop, he wrote down all he knew about the intended mutiny. When he went below he hoped to get a chance of slipping it into the captain’s hand, or of putting it where he would be likely to find it.<br />
<br />
“But luck was against him, for he could not get near the captain the whole of that day, and there were keen eyes always fastened upon him by the convicts, who were on deck by fifty at a time, and watched each other closely for fear of treachery. Amongst each fifty there were always some who were in the plot, and if they had suspected Birt of betraying them they would have made short work of him, and this he knew very well. Evening came, and still he had been able to do nothing. The next morning at four o’clock the bloody deed was to be done. He paced the deck to and fro, to and fro, almost in despair, and yet determined to venture something for the captain’s sake. Then he noticed that the first-mate was in the hold, serving out water, and suddenly an idea came into Birt’s head. He pretended to stumble, threw himself right down the hatchway as though by accident, and fell a distance of sixteen feet into the hold. As you may imagine all was immediately stir and excitement, for at first they thought he was killed—and, indeed, he was badly bruised, having fallen on to a water-cask. In the bustle, however, he managed to slip the book into the mate’s hand, and the thing was done. The surgeon was sent for and they got him up on deck, where, while his hurts were being looked to, he had the satisfaction of seeing the mate go aft and then into the captain’s cabin.<br />
<br />
“Promptly the soldiers were ordered up, but when the convicts on deck found their plot discovered they did not yield without a struggle. It was a short but a violent one, for in the confusion they got hold of some fire arms and fought desperately. The captain was twice wounded, and it was then that the old watch you see there had its share in saving his life. For the bullet, striking against the case and passing through it, was thus lessened in force, and did not reach a vital part of the body. It was, nevertheless, a serious hurt, and caused him much suffering, for it was some days before the bit of metal could be extracted from the wound.<br />
<br />
“Meanwhile the convicts, being overpowered, were secured under hatches again, and the captain then made Birt point out the ringleaders and the most desperate of the men, which he did to the number of thirteen. These were placed in irons for the rest of the voyage, and when the vessel arrived at Port Jackson it was supposed they would have been hanged. But the governor declaring that it was not in his power to do so, they were registered to be kept in irons, chained two and two together, all their lives long.<br />
<br />
“And thus this wicked plot was found out, and those wicked men punished, and thus it pleased Heaven to preserve your great-grandfather’s life—first by reason of the gratitude and devotion of Mr. Birt, and secondly through his stout old watch which did him good service and turned aside the enemy’s bullet.”<br />
Aunt Hannah paused, and looked up at the picture again.<br />
<br />
“But,” said Susan, “what became of Mr. Birt?”<br />
<br />
“He was pardoned,” replied my aunt, “on the representation of my father—because of the service he had rendered in saving the ship and crew at the risk of his own life.”<br />
<br />
“I’m glad of that,” said Sophia Jane; “because it was so very good of him to tumble down the hatchway.”<br />
<br />
“He never returned to England,” continued Aunt Hannah, “but settled in China, where I believe he prospered and became at last a rich man. My father often heard from him and always spoke of him with affection.” (Amy Walton, 'Susan', Chap.VII)<br />
<br />
Extract from the Journal (relating to 1793-94):<br />
<br />
"As my nephew was out of employ, I asked him if he would become part owner with me in a vessel, in the Newfoundland trade; having agreed with him, we purchased a small brig for £500: of about 100 tons. We fitted her up, & intended to have gone in her myself, to fish on the banks of Newfoundland, & had cleared out at the Custom House accordingly; meaning to sail the next day: but meeting a gentleman, on chance whom I knew; who told me he had a fine ship, in good employ; if I would take the command of her; she was bound to China, & to sail under Genoese colours, from Ostend. Having agreed to the offer, I altered the papers of the brig, & sent my nephew out in her; my new ship was called the Renommee. We took in, at London, 300 tons of lead, & then sailed for Ostend, where we completed our cargo, this was in the year 1794. We made the voyage, out & home, without any accident, in 18 months." <br />
<br />
In his Journal, Marshall claimed that he left the ship at St Bartholomew, believing his presence on board would endanger the ship and her crew (who were Genoese), since the port was blockaded by the French. According to this account, written by a family member, he took passage home on the Diana (which did not sail until 1797). [This is incorrect. He had returned earlier, but it was while sailing on the Diana in 1797 that he was shot during an attack by a privateer.]<br />
<br />
Extract from the Journal, relating to 1797-98:<br />
<br />
"My business at London being finished, I went home to my wife & family at Ramsgate. After being there some time, I was advised to leave the sea, & endeavour to get a living on shore. My friends persuaded me to build a windmill for grinding corn, & thought that I would get a good livelihood. I took some time to consider of this, &, at length, acceded to their advice. As I was quite a stranger to the business, I thought it would be better to have a partner who would understand it better than myself; accordingly I found a man to my satisfaction; & built a good large mill with three pairs of stones, & everything that was necessary to set him a-going.<br />
<br />
"We had scarcely got to work before wheat began to rise from 40 shillings up to ten pounds per quarter; which made it all the worse for us, as we had but little money to go on with. My partner wishing to give up the business, I took the mill to myself, striving to get on as well as I could, I had built a house close to my mill, that I might be handy to my work; this took up the most part of my money, that I should have had in the business; I was therefore obliged to mortgage the mill for £800. I laboured on for five years, but finding I was losing something considerable, yearly; I thought it would be for the best to sell the mill: which I accordingly did, at the loss of £200. I next set upon a bake house; thinking to bring my son up to some trade, whereby he might get his living, after my death, for I had nothing to leave him. We carried on the business for two years, & were doing well; by this time my son was able, with the help of a good foreman, to carry on the business, but never liked it, as it did not agree with him. In the meantime, I had an offer to go as commander of a ship to Jamaica; which I accepted & took charge of her. In the meantime I had sold my home to the Duchess of Sussex.<br />
Around 1800 – Marshall planned to command of yet another vessel, with the intention of sailing to Jamaica. It is unclear if this happened.<br />
<br />
"In the meantime, I had an offer to go as commander of a ship to Jamaica; which I accepted & took charge of her. In the meantime I had sold my home to the Duchess of Sussex."<br />
<br />
The following appears as a postscript to the Journal, written in the same hand as the name Ann Bedford on the flyleaf:<br />
Inscription on back of old watch<br />
<br />
‘On the 4th February 1797 10.00 o’clock A.M.: Capt. John Marshall on board “The Diana” of 14 guns & 24 men, had a ball pass through his body & another through his watch & thigh in beating off a French Privateer of 16 guns & 92 men.’</div>Admin