The Haig family’s female convict servants - Part 3
Shipmates at large, October 1839
Image 1: Thomas Evans Chapman, Campbell Street, Hobart Town (showing the Theatre Royal and the Old Treasury)
During 1839, seven women served very short periods with the Haigs - a few days to a few weeks. In the second week of October, it appears three of them may have been AWOL together, and a fourth a week later. Why were they taken on, jointly or in quick succession, and why did they leave after so little time with the family? Maybe the Haigs were entertaining, or perhaps the governess (employed in November 1838) wasn’t coping with the demands of her role: or perhaps she was overbearing: or acting as if she were the mistress? This ‘churn’ through the household certainly adds to the impression that Margaret Wright (see previous post) may not have been assigned to the Haigs until after her son entered the Orphan School in early November 1839. There may be specific reasons, but it is also possible that when shipboard or Factory acquaintances were thrown together in a household in Battery Point, the temptations of the district were simply too great to resist!
Hobart Town was a cosmopolitan place. Whalers and other seamen from all corners of the globe gathered in the public houses of which there were 152 in 1847 [1]. The wharves were busy places, and there were many public and ‘disorderly’ houses within a short distance. Assigned servants were required to remain in their masters’ premises, unless granted permission to be elsewhere - in which case they were required to carry a note to that effect. Those who absconded tended to have been urban dwellers, used to crowds and social life. They sought the company of other people with familiar accents, who sang, danced and drank with others who played card games and dice.
Such pleasures were frowned upon by the colonial authorities. The licensing act of 1833 made it an offence for a publican to allow Ticket of Leave holders to play skittles, bowls, ninepins or any game of chance in a public house and in 1848 a police magistrate claimed to have
‘succeeded in putting a stop to fiddling and dancing in public houses, which have been much improved…the practice of fiddling having been the means of congregating together vicious and dishonest characters of both sexes’ [2].
One strategy favoured by the Convict Department and many of the colonists was ‘assignment ‘to the interior’ i.e. away from the main population centres. The Courier editorialised on 21 April 1843 that convict women should be assigned to situations ‘remote from the incidental and accidental temptations of a populous town’ [3].
Mary McVicar said she was 19 when she was tried in Edinburgh for Highway Robbery with two accomplices, a man and a woman aged 21 and 22 respectively. No stage coaches or horses: this was simply robbery on a public road with the threat of violence. The man tripped his victim and held him down, shouting ‘Your money or your life!’ while the women searched for a pocket they could empty. All three were sentenced to seven years’ transportation.
None mentioned their accomplices when declaring their crime on arrival in Hobart. Mary described herself at that time (January 1838) as a housemaid. Her first recorded assignment was to James Davis, Old Wharf where she remained for 15 months. When she went AWOL from that situation on 30 April 1839 she was reprimanded and returned to the Government for assignment in the country. By October she was reported AWOL again, this time from Captain Haig, and the punishment was a three month extension of her sentence . There was a similar response to her next absconding (from a different master) - though this time the extension was for 6 months. After several more masters, more abscondings, and periods of hard labour, she was granted permission to marry Joseph Glaysher [4].
Image 2: Mary McVicar’s conduct record
Joseph had also been transported for theft but had served his time and now held a Certificate of Freedom. They married on 27 July 1841 at St Johns Church, New Town. The marriage record describes him as a 25 year old coachman, and Mary as a 27 year old spinster [5]. So, according to the Convict Department her husband was her Master and therefore ‘responsible’ for her. Joseph brought two further charges against Mary - unspecified ‘misconduct’ in November 1842 which earned a reprimand, and in March 1845 ‘being absent from her authorised residence’ which resulted in a month of hard labour at the House of Correction (Cascades Female Factory). By this time, Mary had her Ticket of Leave and the couple had three young children (two girls and a boy). Another boy was born in 1846 but died the following April. The census taken in January 1848 shows the couple living in Melbourne St (now Victoria St) in the city with two children - girls aged between two and seven [6]. It is therefore safe to assume that both boys had died as infants. Mary was declared free by servitude on 6 April 1848.
Image 3: St Johns Church, New Town where Mary & Joseph were married in 1841. W L Crowther Collection, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office.
Mary’s death record begs a number of questions. She is listed under her maiden name as a 29 year old house servant whose death on 3 July 1852 was due to paralysis. It is not clear why she was not listed as Mary Glaysher or why her age was clearly incorrect: she was at least 35, possibly 36. Had she and Joseph parted? How might she have become paralysed? There is no record of an inquest [7].
Two years after Mary’s death, Joseph became a publican, securing the license of the Dog and Partridge on the corner of Goulburn and Barrack Street [8]. In 1856 he took over the license of the Neptune Inn on New Wharf (now the site of the Salamanca newsagent). Colonial press reports of the the activities of Joseph Glaysher reveal a man brimming with confidence, who viewed the local constabulary with a certain contempt. In February 1858 his second wife left him, sailing for Melbourne on the steamship, City of Hobart [9].
Image 4: The Dog & Partridge Hotel, Barrack Street, Hobart, Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office
Like Mary, Grace Heinbury from Leicester, had been transported on the Atwick, arriving in Hobart on 24 January 1838. Her trial record indicates that she stole butter, cheese ‘and other items’, and that her name was Himbury. Her convict record notes she was married to a man in Ireland named Edward Hickman. She later claimed to have been appointed matron on the voyage, but there is no record of this ‘appointment’ apart from her testimony [10].
Twenty six year old Grace described herself as married, a nursery maid and needlewoman. She must have impressed Superintendent of Convicts, Josiah Spode as her initial assignment was to Supreme Court Judge, Algernon Montagu of Kangaroo Point (Bellerive).
Grace has a rare status among VDL convict women, in that she was one of only four chosen to provide testimony to the 1841/42 Inquiry into Female Convict Prison Discipline. Therefore we have an opportunity to learn about a convict woman’s experience of the assignment system in her own words [11]. Despite many misdemeanours, and five extensions to her sentence - an additional four years in total during the first four years of her sentence - Grace was selected to speak to the officials conducting the inquiry. Perhaps the local magistrates recognised her as being confident and articulate and unlikely to be cowered by the Flash Mob bullies at the House of Correction.
According to Grace’s testimony, reasons for her misdemeanours included being propositioned by male servants or lodgers, not being provided with adequate clothing, soap or food, being ‘unable to do housework’, being too ill, being unable to work in the same house as a ship mate, and having ‘a very cross mistress’. But often, it was ‘because I was refused leave out’.
Grace gave frank descriptions of her experiences within the Female Factory itself, in the Nursery (at that time opposite the Hospital in Liverpool Street) and as an assigned servant. She had experienced the Crime Class, ’light’ and ‘dark’ cells and hard labour at the wash tubs, and was once even ‘Turnkey over the Crime Class - I used to sell and buy on my own account Tobacco, Tea, Sugar, Meat, etc.’ She said it was common for women while at the Factory to plan to abscond: they knew all the disorderly houses that would take them in. The other convict witnesses confirmed that many women did not mind being in the Factory. On leaving they would make arrangements to get supplies then commit an offence to get back in. Women new to the colony were advised on how they could manage to get out of ‘bad places’ by being insolent or disorderly or running away.
Image 5: Foot of Murray Street
The harassment Grace experienced in at least two of her placements was outlined in her evidence. Once, ‘a lodger asked me to prostitute myself to him. He was a married man and his wife selected me herself from the Factory’ and later ‘I was assigned at a Shoemakers but on being insulted by the men servants I left my situation and was sentenced to six months’ hard labour’ (note - all the women who gave evidence were later granted Conditional Pardons).
In early October 1839, Grace apparently found herself in the Haig household along with shipmate Mary McVicar and another Scot, Ann Balfour. Mary might have been with the family since May and Ann might have been assigned at the same time as Hector shipmate, Catherine Faulds in September. It appears that Ann and Mary might have absconded a few days before Grace, and Catherine a week later. Whether there was a particular plan hatched at the Factory, or whether the opportunity simply presented itself, is impossible to say. From her testimony, there are two possibilities for Grace’s reason for leaving - the more likely being that she found Elizabeth Haig to be a ‘very cross mistress so at the end of three days I absconded’. If the chronology of her recollections is incorrect, this might also be the time when she ‘was sent to a place where a ship mate lived whom I did not like so I told my mistress I could not do Housework…’ [12].
In a little over four years, Grace absconded from service 12 times in all, and the sentences are an indication of the arbitrary nature of the justice meted out by colonial magistrates. Punishments ranged from reprimand to four days on bread and water and returned to her service; to three months at the wash tub; to 12 months extension of sentence and six months detention at H of C (Cascades). Certainly she was AWOL for varying periods, and on one occasion ‘remained illegally at large until apprehended by Constable Perkins (two weeks later) in company with a runaway convict in a disorderly house in Watchorn Street…’. There is no discernible relationship between the extent of the misdemeanours in general, and the punishments handed down.
Image 6: Conduct Record, Grace Heinbury
On 8 September 1841 Shadrach Howard per Royal George submitted an application to marry Grace Heinbury. The application was not approved [13].
Grace gave her evidence to the Inquiry on 20 March 1842. Along with the other three women who gave evidence, she was recommended for a Conditional Pardon ‘for the satisfactory manner in which she gave evidence before a Board enquiring into prison discipline’. The recommendation was recorded on her conduct record on 1 April 1842, but was not officially gazetted until 31 August the following year [14]. There is no record of Grace’s life after this date. I like to imagine that she created a new identity and lived a long and productive life, possibly in another colony or even another country.
Image 7: The new wharf, Hobart Town from the Ordinance Stores.
Author: Felicity Hickman
Felicity has been volunteering at Narryna for the past three years and is also a Visitor Services Officer and volunteer guide at TMAG. For Seniors Week 2019, Felicity created a special tour of Narryna focussing on the experience of the Haig family’s female convict servants: this blog expands on the information presented in the tour.
NOTES
1. Sprent’s Hobart circa 1845 , R J Solomon, Royal society of Tasmania Papers & Proceedings vol 101, p59 https://eprints.utas.edu.au/14255
2. James Boyce, Van Diemen’s Land, Black Inc, 2009 p.219
3. Female Convicts Research Centre, accessed 19 June 2020 from https://www.femaleconvicts.org.au/convict-ships/disposal-on-arrival
4. Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, Marriage Permissions, CON52/1/2 Page 65, https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/1259437
5. Ibid, Marriages, NAME_INDEXES:827980 https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/827980
6. Ibis, Census, NAME_INDEXES:476188 https://stors.tas.gov.au/CEN1-1-83-37$init=CEN1-1-83-38B
7. Ibid, Deaths, NAME_INDEXES:1190353 https://stors.tas.gov.au/RGD35-1-3$init=RGD35-1-3p165
8. Ibid, Hotels and Properties, NAME_INDEXES:464265 https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/464265
9. "SUPREME COURT.—TUESDAY." The Hobart Town Daily Mercury (Tas. : 1858 - 1860) 7 April 1858: 2. Web. 19 Jun 2020 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3247486
10. Female Convicts Research Centre, accessed 19 June 2020 from https://www.femaleconvicts.org.au/index.php/convict-ships/convict-ship-records
The journal of the Atwick’s surgeon superintendent Peter Leonard gives an excellent description of how prisoners were organised aboard ship and has been transcribed by Colleen Arulappu and is available via the Female Convicts Research Centre. This record also sets out their daily routine, meal times, bathing, schooling and measures to prevent scurvy. Most interesting is the mention of dancing and other light entertainment to maintain health through exercise.
11. For full transcription see https://www.femaleconvicts.org.au/convict-institutions/inquiry-1841-1843 Female Convicts Research Centre, accessed 19 June 2020.
12. "TITLE DEEDS." The Hobart Town Courier and Van Diemen's Land Gazette (Tas. : 1839 - 1840) 11 October 1839: 2. Web. 19 Jun 2020 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/8748548
13. Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, Marriage Permissions, NAME_INDEXES:1253792 https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/1253792
14. "GOVERNMENT NOTICE." Colonial Times (Hobart, Tas. : 1828 - 1857) 12 September 1843: 4. Web. 19 Jun 2020 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/8753960
Images
Image 1: Thomas Evans Chapman (1789 - 1864), Campbell Street, Hobart Town (showing the Theatre Royal and the Old Treasury) c1837, pencil 17.6 x 26.4 Collection: The Royal Society of Tasmania, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. AG2253
Image 2: Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, Convicts, Conduct Record https://stors.tas.gov.au/NI/1418272
Image 3: New Town (Ile Van Diemen) eessine par L. Le Breton. Lithe par Ph. Blanchard Blanchard, Pharamond, 1805-1873 WL Crowther Collection, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office https://stors.tas.gov.au/TASIMAGES$init=AUTAS001125294546w800
Image 4: Photograph - Sketch of the Dog and Partridge on Barrack Street, PH30/1/2529, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office https://stors.tas.gov.au/PH30-1-2529
For more information on other hotels in this location see http://ontheconvicttrail.blogspot.com/2016/12/pubs-of-goulburn-st-barrack-st.html
Image 5: Thomas Evans Chapman (1789 - 1864) Foot of Murray St. Hobart, Waterman's Dock c1840, pencil 22.8 x 35.2 cm. Presented by The Art Society Old Hobart Exhibition, 1896, Collection: Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, AG1458
Image 6: Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, Conduct Registers of Female Convicts arriving in the Period of the Assignment System (CON40) https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON40-1-6$init=CON40-1-6p18
Image 7: The new wharf, Hobart Town from the Ordinance Stores, taken from a sketch made at the time of the Regatta. Eaton, H. G. (Henry Green), 1818-1887. Accessed 19/06/20 https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135290754/view