• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Transportation To Tasmania

Viv, from what I read yesterday convicts and their children were always second class citizens until an act was passed to prevent this. Wages were kept low by the property owners so ex-convicts could not improve their state.
 
Sorry if this irrelevant to this thread but I've recentl been looking at Convict lists for the Edwin Fox - last surviving convict ship in dry dock Picton NZ

convictrecords.com.au

It allows searches by date or ship
 
Also

search.archives.tas.gov.au/default.aspx?detail=1&type=S&id=CON13
 
Last edited:
Found this on the Tasmania site. There are a couple of other entries but it takes ages to get to the right page so will look later.
fdc6b8d6-d888-40c6-beaa-b1e8208e3dd8
2d99bab0-b6bb-44fa-a442-edf767b19eb0
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-12_10-0-9.png
    upload_2018-3-12_10-0-9.png
    963.9 KB · Views: 10
Pedrocut said:
Hansard...May 1851

“And several cases came to light in which female infants of the tenderest years were brutally and unnaturally violated by ticket-of-leave convicts. In short, Van Diemen's Land was a loathsome ulcer on the body of the British Empire, and a foul reproach to this country.”

https://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1851/may/20/transportation-to-van-diemens-land
Click to expand...
Which may well be the reason the place was re-named in 1856 (as reported earlier in this thread). Anywhere that gets bad press continually is usually re-named it seems.
 
William is entry 475 on this record which includes a description of him . I have pasted the lot so you can see the titles of the columns.
 

Attachments

  • CON23-1-1-0025.jpg
    CON23-1-1-0025.jpg
    373.4 KB · Views: 9
Going back to the first post. How do we know that the wife and 5 children were transported to Australia?
 
I wondered that. I am sure I have seen somewhere that wives only went if they had the means to pay the fare. (Of course I can't find the link now!). Do we know her name?
 
Pen wrote "Confessed this offence, stealing Bible and prayer book from Shenstone church, in custody once before for coining - wife and 5 ch at Russell Street, Birmingham"
Looks like "badly ...." or "barely ..." after former character.
 
Thank you for all the information, it's going to take me a while to go through it as I want to read everything carefully. However, I can answer the question about the wife and children going to Australia: I believe William's wife was Mary nee Tysall and it was only 4 daughters who went with her to Australia. She died in Sydney NSW. I don't have all the research to hand as I initially said that I would get help transcribing the document in Post #1 but will see what else I can find out. Interesting that there was another William Bolton on the Lord Hungerford and William had a son also William.
I think that the words 'badly connected' (as in keeps bad company) follow 'not known' for Gaol report so, the whole thing now reads:

'Transported for Sacrilege.

Gaol Report: Former character not known, badly connected.

Hulk Report: Orderly

Confessed: This offence stealing a Bible and Prayer Book from Shenstone Church.

In custody once before for coining.

Wife and 5 children at Russell Street, Birmingham.'

Which I think is as good as it can get. (Russell Street was apparently off Steelhouse Lane but jury is still out on this one v Rupert).
 
In Slater’s and White’s Directories for 1849 and 1850 there is no record of Rupert Street, but Russell Street, as you say, started at 67 Steelhouse Lane.


EB63AF57-482C-4C4C-BF12-8B172FEED785.jpeg
 
Neither William or Joseph Jostage absconded from Van’s Land in 1828. Where would the absconders go?

From the Police Gazette or The Hue and Cry.

0D3496CF-7E7E-480B-AA7B-AAD51526CEEB.jpeg
 
Thank you for that mbenne. I have had a quick look at this contemporary report but need to read the whole thing I think.
 
Pedrocut and Janice, I think that William's wife was probably transported for her own offences rather than because of her marriage. I have only found the attached so far and although she was acquitted in this case I think she was most likely in trouble again later. I don't believe she could have afforded to take herself and her girls to Australia but they definitely fetch up there later.
One point of interest - the first line states 'convicted' and at the bottom 'acquitted'? Further investigation needed I think.
 

Attachments

  • Mary Boulton nee Tysall.jpg
    Mary Boulton nee Tysall.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 7
Lady Penelope said:
Pedrocut and Janice, I think that William's wife was probably transported for her own offences rather than because of her marriage. I have only found the attached so far and although she was acquitted in this case I think she was most likely in trouble again later. I don't believe she could have afforded to take herself and her girls to Australia but they definitely fetch up there later.
One point of interest - the first line states 'convicted' and at the bottom 'acquitted'? Further investigation needed I think.
Click to expand...

Interesting is the alternate spelling of Bolton/Boulton, will have to check again for William.

The date for Mary is 2 years later than William, and dealt in Warks not Staffs.
 
There is a Warwick record for Mary Boulton in April 1824 which says "transportation".
The writing is very faint but I can just make out "handling stolen goods" and then 7 years . Apparently any prison term of 7 or more years resulted in transportation.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-14_12-47-7.png
    upload_2018-3-14_12-47-7.png
    39.4 KB · Views: 3
Well, would you Adam and Eve it! From the Oxford University and City Herald of February 1821...One is still at large!

William Bolton of Lichfield!

C7D11345-8C6E-4600-8FA5-25843AFD0C9F.jpeg
 
pjmburns said:
William is entry 475 on this record which includes a description of him . I have pasted the lot so you can see the titles of the columns.
Click to expand...

This is the list for the Lord Hungerford and we have referred to No 475 William Bolton who was tried at Staffs Sessions, but there is also William Bolton No 482 who was charged at Warks.
 
Last edited:
Did Pen say something about a son called William? The ages are significant. The Stafford one is 49 and I am not sure about the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top