More movement on the Mashfords

ABOVE: Eggesford House was the centre of Eggesford Parish where Mary Labbett,probably our John Mashford's mother, was born.

Family researcher, Kylie Nott is doing a sterling job tracking down the Mashford family. All to the good I say given that I am not getting very far on Greek Charlie Ross or Edward Atkins. However, ancestry research proceeds generally at tortoise pace with the odd ‘fox’ moments.

We now have records for the marriage of John Mashford and Mary Cann and burial records for John and sadly, daughter Emma, who died aged one. There is also a possibility that we have the record for the marriage of John’s parents given the link of the name Labbett which was given as a middle name to John and Mary’s son, Josiah.

A John Mashford married Mary Labbett on March 31, 1796 in Eggesford, Devon. It is possible that Mary Labbett’s mother was a May, given the middle name bestowed on their grandson, George.

Eggesford is a small parish in the rolling Devon hills about mid-way between Exmoor and Dartmoor. It was barely a village, more a collection of dwellings whose inhabitants supported the ‘big house’, Eggesford House, the residence of the Earls of Portsmouth, peers of the realm. The stately home of that time no longer exists. It was demolished in 1832 when the Hon. Newton Fellowes built the current Eggesford House, which fell into disuse in the 1920’s. While remaining a picturesque ruin for countless years, the house has now been partly restored and is lived in.'

LEFT: Eggesford House, built in the 1830's to replace the original has now been partly restored and is a private home.

Eggesford is 6km from Winkleigh; 5km from Coldridge and 11km from Zeal Monachorum: villages where our Mashfords lived.

John Mashford married Mary Cann on May 29, 1818 in Coldridge, Devon. John died some 18 years later at the age of 39 and was buried on May 5, a few weeks before their wedding anniversary, in 1836 in Coldridge, Devon in the parish of Coleridge. Within eight months their youngest child Emma would be dead. One-year-old Emma was buried on January 25, 1837 in Coldridge, Devon.

Mary Cann Mashford was a widow with six surviving children: Elizabeth, aged 16; John Cann, aged 13; George May, aged 10; Josiah Labbett, aged 8; Mary Ann, aged 5 and Jane, aged 3.

Her husband was a tailor but the 1841 census records her as a publican. Perhaps enough money had been left for her to buy the business. It would be 11 years before she and her children emigrated to South Australia.

LEFT: St. Mary's Anglican church, Coldridge, Devon. John Mashford and his small daughter, Emma, died eight months apart and may well be buried in St. Mary's churchyard.

There is no doubt we have the family; but not yet certainty about our Elizabeth. However, what we have is an important part of the process. At this stage it looks like the name Labbett came from John Mashford’s mother; the name Cann came from his wife, Mary and the middle name, May, might come from Mary Cann’s mother.

This is also suggesting that the name Haynes, as given to Edward and Elizabeth Atkin’s son and grandson is a maternal name from the Atkins family.

At this point we have no burial records for Mary Cann Mashford or her son George May Mashford. It is possible they returned to England at some point, or that they moved to Victoria with Josiah.

And, it is only a maybe, but a record has been found for the death of a Peter Lewis in Melbourne Hospital. He died on February 13, 1854 of fever with no family present. The age given is 42 although, as other records have shown, if it is our Peter Lewis, he may have dropped five years from his age when he married Elizabeth Mashford.

Perhaps he went to Melbourne to look for work, following his brother-in-law Josiah Mashford...the third son had been born in 1853 ... and never returned. Or perhaps he left Elizabeth and his children and she did not know what had happened to him. The fact that his death was not recorded in South Australia suggests he did not die there. However, the fact that Elizabeth remarried before the seven years were up for an ‘abandoned wife’ suggests she may have known of his death as opposed to knowingly committing bigamy.

The evidence for our Elizabeth is pointing strongly in the direction of the Coldridge Mashfords which suggests that, like the gangrene story, the illegitimacy story has been told about the wrong person. This means that it may be Mary Cann, Mary Labbett or even the unknown (?) May who was illegitimate. It wouldn’t fit the ‘being pushed to emigrate’ part of the story, but might better fit the ‘daughter of a noble family’ part of the story.

With luck, perseverance and time we might get our answer. Meanwhile, given that 12 months ago I knew nothing more than the name Elizabeth Mashford Atkins and the story of illegitimacy, we have come a very long way indeed.

The right and wrong of family stories

I have learned a valuable lesson this week; that family stories may be right and wrong at the same time, but, that invariably they have substance.
One of the first stories my aunt, Jessie Sands told me, was that her grandfather Charlie Ross had died of gangrene poisoning.
'The smell in the house was horrendous,' she had been told.
It seemed such a definite story with enough 'particulars' to ensure its truth and yet when I saw a copy of Charlie's death certificate it said he had died of 'heart problems associated with asthma over two years.'
That, I thought, was the end of the story. It seemed odd that such a graphic story could be so wrong and as I now know, the story was 'right' but told about the wrong person.
This week I received a copy of Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins death certificate and all became clear; she died of 'gangrene poisoning in the lower extremities.' The certificate stated that no definite time-frame had been given but one presumes that the process was not fast.
The wrong bit of a right story is easy to understand given that Charlie Ross died in 1907 and Elizabeth died barely six months later in 1908 ....more than a decade before Jessie Ross Sands was born. I must admit I had been curious reading Mary Ross's death notice for her mother and the reference to 'after much suffering,' and here the reason for what must have been terrible suffering is shown clearly.
Gangrene poisoning, where parts of the body die and rot,  is a slow and ghastly way to die and she must have been in agony. Hardly over the grief of burying a husband and father, Mary and her children had to tend to the awful and no doubt constant, suffering of a mother and grandmother and live in a small house consumed by the smell of rotting flesh. It was nearly winter when Elizabeth Mashford died and one can only presume that no matter how cold it may have been, that doors and windows would have been permanently open in the vain hope of releasing some of the nauseating odours.
I was also curious about the request for New Zealand papers as well as the English ones to 'carry' the notice but now that we know Jane Mashford had moved to New Zealand with her husband George O'Brien and their chidren in the 1860's, this also makes sense. Both Jane and George were dead by 1908 but there must have been contact with their children and the Mashfords in Australia.
So, as the pieces fall into place, it is also an indication that the story of illegitimacy is 'right' but perhaps the person is 'wrong.' I believe it would have to be a close family member and if it is not great-great-grandmother Elizabeth then it must be her mother or her grandmother. That mother could be Mary Cann or it could be Elizabeth Mashford.... or it could be someone else again.
For the moment I am getting some research done in Devon which may throw some more light on this particular story. Apparently parish records frequently indicated illegitimacy, even when the mother and father later married.

Plenty of possibles; many maybes; lots of likely, and the occasional definite.

LEFT: Edward Atkins with daughters Mary and Elizabeth. He was one of the earliest settlers in South Australia and one of the first to settle the Clare Valley.

Working with so little information, as is the way with such research, there are many possibilities, quite a few maybes, some likely and a small amount of definite.

But it is important to start somewhere which is why any possibilities which morph into maybe or likely have to be explored no matter how 'long the shot' may initially appear.

My goal is to get as much information up on the blog as possible; even those possibles which may turn out to be impossible. The more information on the 'net' the greater the chance of connections being made. What aids ancestry research in this day and age is the 'information sharing' nature of the internet. Increasingly, as I search for family names I find myself pulling up this blog. That means others who are searching for the same family names will also come across it and possibly find a match.

So, I would clarify for anyone following the process that just because I am exploring Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins illegitimacy or Joseph Atkins convict record for example, it does not mean that I hold either circumstance to be absolute fact. We are dealing in the realm of conjecture much of the time and working with an organic process which throws up countless scenarios and from time to time, a few absolute facts.

The evidence to date is that the 'family story' about Elizabeth's illegitimacy and her 'noble connections' has credence. It is a story which apparently was not passed down through her sons by Peter Lewis but it was passed down through the descendants of both her daughters - Mary Atkins Ross and Elizabeth Atkins Cox.

The (Atkins) Cox and (Atkins) Ross families have had little or nothing to do with each other since our grandparents' era and yet each has pretty much the same story. To my mind, it is possible that one reason why the story did not come down through George Lewis's descendants, as fellow researcher Kylie Nott has pointed out, is because mothers are more likely to talk to their daughters than to their sons. That was even more true in the past than it is today but women are certainly more open than men and more open with each other. More to the point, in Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins day, women spent more time together. Women cleaned, cooked, sewed, birthed babies, tended the sick, sat by the side of the dying together.... and talked. Women confided in each other in a way that they did not confide in men.

One scenario which is certainly possible and is yet to be explored is that the 'illegitimate'  child was not my great-great grandmother, Elizabeth Mashford but her mother, or, possibly her grandmother. This has yet to be adequately researched but the story was so specific as told to us that I would be surprised if it is the case. However, it does 'open up' greater potential for the 'noble family link' to be present in any real sense given that 'potential' fathers to date are relatively lowly on the 'noble scale.'

In truth the 'story' of Elizabeth Mashford's birth, or that of her mother or grandmother for that matter, is not particularly important except from the perspective of substantiating a long-held 'family story.'  The veracity or lack of veracity adds little to the overall picture unless it can be shown that there was a connection to an important and extremely interesting family. That does not look likely at this point although it may be possible if the 'story' has its origins in older generations.

LEFT: Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins was born in Devon.

On the other hand, proving Joseph Atkins to be a convict would be much more interesting. But this too is conjecture at this point.... possible but not particularly likely. Because Edward Atkins cannot be traced before his marriage to Hannah McLeod in 1843, convict origins must be considered as a possible source.

In truth, many settlers came to the new colony of South Australia without being named in the registers of the ships on which they travelled. At this point, convict origins is just one of a number of 'scenarios' which may, or may not throw light on Edward Atkins.

And I was thinking that the 'lack' of a father's name on both Edward and Elizabeth's first marriage certificates might indicate 'reluctance' on their part to name their fathers. Not so. Wrong on that count. As Kylie pointed out and as I discovered when I received copies of the marriage certificates, there was no requirement or place to list the name of the father on the earlier marriage registers. John Mashford and Joseph Atkins were not listed because there was no need to list them.

Luke (Atkins) Scane-Harris has come up with a little bit more information on our Edward.  He has had a response from the Clare Regional History Group who confirmed that Edward Atkins was one of the first settlers in the Clare valley. The Clare  District Council was not formed until 1853, and any records before that date were destroyed by a fire, but Edward Atkins was listed as a settler in 1849. He was also listed as a farmer.



LEFT: The Clare Valley where Edward Atkins was one of the earliest settlers is now one of Australia's renowned wine regions.

We can now surmise that the reason he married at Penwortham, Clare Valley was probably because he had friends... or even relatives... living there. Even more interestingly this record shows him as single. So, some six years after marrying Hannah McLeod he is alone and childless. Death records for Hannah and any children might provide more information if they can be found.

There are three Atkins children buried in Adelaide's West Terrace Cemetery:  Benjamin Atkins died on December 29, 1846 aged 9 months; William Atkins died on March 16, 1840 aged 13 months and a two-week old baby girl, surname Atkins died on February 1, 1846.

The first child is more likely to be the son of a Benjamin Atkins who is listed as arriving in South Australia a few years earlier but the other two could be Edward's although the 1839 birth of William probably excludes him given that a Hannah McLeod is listed as arriving at Port Adelaide in 1840.  This may of course not be the Hannah McLeod who married Edward. If the link can be made for the little girl who died in 1846 it would mark the period at which Edward moved to the Clare Valley. Perhaps he lost his wife Hannah at the same time. The fact that the baby girl was not named could suggest that her mother was dead or dying at the time.

Edward Atkins was clearly one of South Australia's earliest settlers and therefore ranks as a 'pioneer' but he was one of the first settlers in the Clare Valley which is now one of Australia's premier wine growing regions. If he was born in Australia then his family would rank as some of the earliest settlers in the country as a whole... whether they came to the new land on the 'edge of the world' as convicts, soldiers, administrators or free settlers.

The search for Edward Atkins' origins continues as does the search for the details of the Devon Mashfords. On the latter count there is progress. Kylie Nott has come up with quite a bit more information on the family. She has found the Coldridge Mashfords in Devon parish baptism records and discovered that in all they had seven children. It seems marriage and burial records are on the way.

In the meantime, John Mashford is listed as a tailor on all of the records. Not quite the 'serf' perhaps that I had assumed. The records show Elizabeth born in 1820; John Cann in 1823; George May in 1826; Josiah Labbatt in 1828; Mary Ann in 1831; Jane in 1833 and Emma in 1835.

There is no doubt that our Elizabeth Mashford was 'related' to this family because she travelled with some of them to South Australia but there is still a question mark as to whether she is the Elizabeth born to John Mashford and his wife Mary Cann or a relation on the Mashford side.

The Cann maternal surname is now a definite because it appears on the marriage certificates of Mary Ann , Jane and Josiah. All were married in Melbourne, Victoria. Josiah married Brigid O'Neill, a farmer's daughter from Dublin, Ireland,  in St. Ignatius Church in 1885. He is listed as being widowed in 1879 and gives his profession as 'contractor' and his age as 46. He also lists two living children and his birthplace as Devonshire.

On July 14, 1855 in St Stephen's Church, Richmond,  Mary Ann Mashford married William Mollison Strachan. of Montrose, Scotland. He was a 26 year old shipping clerk and she is listed as being 'with friends' and aged 24. She lists her father's profession as shopkeeper which suggests that he had his own tailoring shop.

Jane Mashford married George O'Brien in St James's Church, Melbourne on February 23, 1853. George O'Brien was the fifth son of Admiral Robert O'Brien, born at Dromoland Castle, County Clare in 1822. He was thus the grandson of a baronet, and through him a direct descendant of a dynasty of Irish kings. Moreover he was first cousin to the thirteenth Lord Inchiquin who succeeded to that title in 1855.  O'Brien came to Australia at the age of 15 in 1837. He became a renowned painter  although died in poverty. Sometime in the 1860's he moved to New Zealand with his family and is now claimed by the Kiwis as 'their own' despite spending roughly as much time in Australia as he did in New Zealand and having been born in Ireland.

But what makes O'Brien interesting is that one assumes, and it is only an assumption,  given his lineage, that Jane, who died in 1879 and who bore him seven children, is more likely than not to have been literate. Jane, Mary-Ann and Joshua appear to have signed their marriage certificates although such copies are always notoriously hard to read. If our Elizabeth was a sibling, and the eldest sibling at that, why was she not also literate?  We have the Mashford family but have yet to ascertain our Elizabeth's place in it.

If our Elizabeth's age at death is accurate, and while ages seemed to change on marriage certificates, age at death is more likely to be correct - then she would have been born in 1819 not 1820. This fits with the Elizabeth Mashford born to Elizabeth Mashford and Partridg(e) in Winkleigh in that year. So the question mark still hovers on which of the Elizabeth's is the ancestor.

And, as Kylie reminded me, records found on the Latter Day Saints family research site are never as accurate as parish records. She found the birth record for our 1819 Winkleigh Elizabeth but minus a father's name. The fact that this Elizabeth took her mother's name means she was almost certainly illegitimate but the Partridge connection is questionable. As of course it always was given the lack of the 'definite' about the birth of our Elizabeth Mashford at this point. Then again, someone 'entered' the name Partridg(e) into the LDS records as the father of this Elizabeth which means that someone, somewhere, believed this to be true and the link remains possible.

Marriage records for Mary Ann and Josiah have also been found by Kylie.... including Josiah's bigamous marriage. Mary Ann lists herself as being from Coldridge, near Exeter in Devon and both list Mary Cann as their mother's name.

So, at this point the Mashfords who came out on the Princess Royal in 1857 with our Elizabeth were  probably children of John Mashford, tailor and his wife Mary Cann from Coldridge in Devon. The question mark is whether or not our Elizabeth was also a child of this couple or their grand-daughter, niece or even cousin.

The devil is in the detail with Devon dabblings

We have come a long way in terms of knowing more about the origins of Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins and I only hope we can do the same with Edward Atkins. But the devil is in the detail when it comes to finding information.

Of course it is wonderful when a family line can be traced back through countless generations but I am not sure it proves much. It is interesting to know the origins of one's family and names, dates and places of birth in order to have a better feel for the genetic and experiential inheritance.

But, the genetic inheritance becomes diluted over time with two becoming four and four becoming eight and eight becoming sixteen and sixteen becoming thirty-two and thirty-two becoming sixty four by the time you reach great-great-great-great grandparents or grandparents 4X removed. At this point you have 126 ancestors which makes my head spin a tad. It is impossible to trace them all conclusively.

Which is why ancestry research tends to head in a particular direction and focus on 'some' not all of one's ancestral inheritance. The goal of this research is to discover Charlie Ross's Greek origins and that is the main focus.

The detours have however been necessary so far and interesting. I knew nothing about the Mashfords except the name, the illegitimacy and the supposedly 'noble' links. The research has thrown up information we did not have and photographs we never expected to see.

While the 'finer details' can be hard to put in place, it is fascinating to explore the 'bigger picture' of the times in which my ancestors lived. If poverty sent my Mashford's to Australia I suspect it was war which sent them to Devon... although it could also have been poverty. The Mashfords are thought to belong to one original family, established in Lincolnshire, which sent off a Devonshire 'branch' sometime in the 17th  or 18th century.

I suspect the reason for that may have been the English Civil War in 1643. The citizens of Lincolnshire and Devonshire were, in the main, on the side of Parliament. Very early in the piece the Royalists took Lincolnshire and held it for the duration of the First Civil War.

Between 1642 and 1651, Lincoln was on the frontier between the Cavaliers and Parliamentary forces. The city 'changed hands' a number of times but basically the Royalists held sway. The city of Lincoln was badly damaged  and as a result, while the rest of the country prospered as the 1700's arrived, Lincoln continued to suffer.

Did our Mashford decamp south to Devonshire hoping to continue the fight against the Royalists?  Was there a difference of opinion in the Mashford family with our man siding with Parliament and his brother or father siding with the Royalists? There is no doubt that the English civil war split families as well as country.

But there are no Mashfords ....or Partridges for that matter ..... in the Zeal Monachorum Protestation Returns of 1641-2 in the early days of the war. By the end of 1640, King Charles I had become very unpopular. Parliament forced him to make changes in the Constitution which gave them a bigger say in how the country was governed. From then on, Parliament was split into two factions - Royalists (Cavaliers) who supported the King and Parliamentarians (Roundheads) who wanted political and religious reform.

On 3 May 1641, every Member of the House of Commons was ordered to make a declaration of loyalty to the king and to Parliament. This was ratified next day by the House of Lords. They called it their Protestation against 'an arbitrarie and tyrannical government' and another order was made that every Rector, Churchwarden and Overseer of the Poor had to appear in person before the JPs in their Hundred to make this Protestation Oath in person.

It was to be a declaration of their belief in the 'Protestant religion, allegiance to the King and support for the rights and privileges of Parliament.'

The war would drag on untill 1651 claiming nearly one million lives, many of those dying from disease, famine and from religious genocide.  King Charles I was beheaded on January 30, 1649 for high treason against the realm and people. His son (the future Charles II) would continue the war untill 1651 untill he was defeated at Worcester and fled to France.

In 1660 Charles II returned to London in 1660 with popular support. He was crowned in May 1661. As was the way, he sentenced to death the surviving men who had voted to execute his father.  An uneasy peace settled on the land but it marked a turning point in history - never again would a monarch confront parliament in any real sense.

No doubt some divided families made peace and others did not. Perhaps our Mashford was long settled in Devon, or perhaps not. He may well have only left Lincolnshire at the end of the 17th century or early in the 18th because times were tough in Lincolnshire?

Either explanation may be right or neither explanation may be right. However, a John Mashford was certainly living in the parish of Zeal Monachorum in 1723. Zeal Monachorum was a nearby parish to Coldridge and Mashfords were registered in both during the 1841 census.

The Devon and Exeter Oath Rolls of 1723 show that a John Mashford registered and signed his allegiance to the king. Nearly one hundred years before  the illiterate Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins was born, here is a Mashford who could sign his name. It's an indication that our Mashfords may have gradually slipped down the social ladder during the 18th century.
The oaths were sworn at The Blue Anchor, Crediton on September 23, 1723 before Bampfylde Rodd and John Gibbs esq.Along with John Mashford some twenty-five Partridges also stepped up to pledge allegiance to King George I.

These Rolls were compiled in the aftermath of the Jacobite Atterbury plot of 1720-22 and contain the names of over 25,000 Devonians, amounting to some one in five of the adult population of the time. Both men and women signed the Rolls in front of Justices of the Peace.

There is no sign of any Mashfords on the pre: 1723 rolls and no sign of any Mashfords in Winkleigh. The fact that one Mashford appears in the midst of more than two-dozen Partridges does indicate that the Mashford presence in Devon was far more recent than the Partridges. And given the preponderance of Mashfords in Lincolnshire at the time it is a very good bet that the Mashfords made their way to Devon in the early 1700's.

Whatever the reason the Mashfords, at least on our side, were showing themselves to be willing to take a risk in their bid for a better life. Although, perhaps by the time our Mashfords left for South Australia the circle was turning and the Mashfords, like so many others, were leaving the worst of poverty behind. In White's Register for Zeal Monachorum in 1850 there are no Mashford's listed.

LEFT: Village life in 19th century Devon.

While in White's 1850 register for Coldridge there is a Josiah Mashford, shoemaker and a Joseph Mashford, schoolteacher.

There's a good chance that these Mashfords form some part of the family tree and the fact that one of them is educated enough to be a schoolteacher stands in stark contrast to our illiterate lot.

A Reed and William Partridge are listed on the same register as farmers ... but not as owners. Perhaps now it was the turn of the Partridges to slip a little down the ladder. By 1893 there are no Mashfords listed in Coldridge (Coleridge) but there is one Partridge :  A Mrs Frances Partridge, farmer and miller of Park Mill.

Coldridge is a small parish situated on the River Taw, 10 miles (16 km) north-west of the ancient market town of Crediton between Brushford and Nymett Rowland.  It is situated deep in the heart of Devon, and still remains pretty much a country village. The hamlet of East Leigh which lies ½ mile (3/4 km) south of the parish is also part of Coldridge.

In 1801 the parish had 697 people; in 1851, four years after Elizabeth and her family had left, the number was down to 607 and by 1901 it was nearly half that and parish numbers wouldstill hovers around this point  today.

And one of the local Mashfords, another John Mashford, possibly our own but possibly not,  has popped up in my search as: Bigamist of Ugborough &Truro! But bigamy was not uncommon at the time given the divorce laws which made it easier to simply 'walk away' and marry again and hope that the paucity of records would keep your secret safe.

Devon, or Devonshire is bounded on the north by Briston Channel; on the north-east by Somerset; on the east by Dorset; on the south-east and south by the English Channel and on the West by Cornwall. The only English counties which are larger in size are Yorkshire and Lincoln.

ABOVE: Clay mining was a part of life in 19th century Devon.

The landscape is varied from mountainous in the east, to rocky along the coast and lush, green rolling hills and valleys across the centre. It is a land of rivers, springs and brooks ... very different to northern South Australia where Elizabeth would make her home. But, like South Australia, Devon was also a place of mines; tin, copper, lead, iron ore, silver, gold, cobalt, manganese and coal.

And, like much of South Australia Devon is a place of clay soils ranging in colour from yellow to pure white and from heavy to light with areas of rich loam. It was the rich loam which made Devon a land of rich produce and an agricultural 'basket' for England.



LEFT: Fishing off the Devon coast.

In the 18th and 19th centuries it was agricultural in the main with good fishing along the coast. Just like South Australia when Elizabeth and her family arrived.

Living in Wirrabarra Forest it was highly unlikely that the Atkins family spent much time fishing.

Daughter Mary Atkins would of course marry a fishmonger but living in Gladstone, so far from the coast, they would not have gone fishing either. Or perhaps she accompanied Charlie Ross when he went to buy his fish to sell and they sat on the docks at Port Pirie, casting a line, while waiting for their goods to be sorted and loaded.

Perhaps Elizabeth went with them to care for the children while Charlie and Mary loaded the fish which would be taken back to Gladstone to sell. Did the sight of the port bring back good memories or bad? It is impossible to know. I like to think that she was content with her life and her family in South Australia. Her children and grandchildren seemed to grow up as reasonably sensible people and that's always a sign of reasonable parenting which as often as not results from a reasonable level of contentment.

Perhaps the family story has a little more fact than fantasy!

LEFT: A church in Colebrooke.

There's a reason why family stories remain alive and often it is because there is some substance to them.

The story of Elizabeth Mashford's 'noble' connections has been in the family now for nearly two hundred years, spanning some six generations.

But, there was no way of finding any evidence for the story until we discovered that Elizaberth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins had been born in Devon. From that point we had a place to search which narrowed the field considerably.

Finding a birth record for 1819, Winkleigh, Devon for an Elizabeth Mashford born to Elizabeth Mashford, father Partridg(e) and finding family members living in a nearby village, whom we know travelled to Australia with Elizabeth on the Princess Royal in 1847, gave greater credence to the 'find.'

All we needed was a Partridge family in the area and that was easy. There were a lot of them. All we then needed was an Elizabeth Partridge, about the right age, who could be the 'Lady Elizabeth' who was 'responsible' for sending our Elizabeth out to the colonies.

And that was the hard part. Not only could I not find any 'noble' Partridges, I could not find an Elizabeth Partridge let alone a Lady Elizabeth Partridge who could fit the time-frame.

Until today. As part of my research I got in touch with some descendants of the Devon Partridges whose ancestors also emigrated and who are living in Canada. Donald Partridge wrote back to say he knew nothing about any illegitimate daughters... but then of course I had not expected any Partridge would ... and he put me in touch with his cousin, Pam Vaughn who wrote:

'Donald’s and my Partridges were mostly around Colebrooke and Coleford (adjoining villages.) The family legend that came down through several branches was that the patriarch was an Earl. This part was interesting which is one of the reasons I set out on the quest to learn more. Indeed Thomas was of the gentry, but of the lowest strata. More like a country squire. He was listed as “gentleman” in the census. This meant that he hired all labor to be done. A few of his sons were later listed as “yeomen” which meant they hired laborers but also worked in the fields, too.

Thomas (the gentlemen) and his wife, Elizabeth, have a tomb in a prominent location in the Colebrooke churchyard.'

LEFT: a Church gate, common in Devon churchyards.

Colebrooke and Coleford are similar distances away from Winkleigh to that of Coldridge where so many Mashfords were recorded in the 1841 census and then later identified as accompanying our Elizabeth on her journey to Australia.

So, not only do we have a Partridg(e) in the area, we have a 'noble' connection and we have a 'Lady' Elizabeth! She may well have only been the wife of a country squire but have ranked highest in the little village and held the title of Lady in either an official or unofficial sense.

Then again, just as our 'family story' looks like having some substance, so too may the 'story' handed down through the Partridge families of an ancestor being an Earl. Such stories usually endure because they have some substance in fact and that makes them worth remembering. It seems to be human nature to remember both the 'best' and the 'worst.'

One Partridge family history states that there were four families of this name which probably had their origins in the Norman conquest and which settled in the areas of Medfield, Duxbury, Hadley and Salibury between 1630 and 1650 and in time found their way across the length and breadth of England.

When William, Duke of Normandy, defeated Harold, the King of England in 1066 he seized the land and estates of the British nobles and handed them over to his faithful Norman gentry. As one does. One of those to be so fortunate was 'Partridge the Norman.' He is said to have migrated during the reign of Stephen, 1135-1154 and in recognition of military services, to have been given estates in Essex by Henry II, 1154-1189.

In 1254 a Richard de Pertriche (the French spelling of Partridge), is recorded as the family head with manors in the county of Gloucester.

The English surnames Patriche, Patridge and Partridge derive from the Old French Word, 'perdriz' which in turn came from the Latin, 'perdix, perdicis,' and no doubt found its way to Gaul (France) with the Romans. Yet more invaders in that ever-present way of history.

It could have started as a nickname - someone looking a bit like a partridge, which seems odd - or it could have been related to occupation - someone who caught partridges or hunted them - or it could have been taken from the name of a village where partridges were in plentiful supply.

The first record of the name was in 1176, in the Pipe Rolls of Devonshire, during the reign of King Henry II - an Ailward Pertriz no less and perhaps an ancestor for our Devon Partridges... or even all Partridges including the John Perdrich found in Staffordshire in 1244; the Philip Partrich found in Cheshire in 1260; the Sibil Partryge found in Staffordshire in 1332 or the John Pattridge found in Suffolk in 1622.

Interestingly, the Mashford name is believed to have also originated in France. Although this is hardly unusual given the French invasion which engulfed England after the Battle of Hastings. But one story has it that the Mashfords were latecomers to England having arrived around the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Two families with the same name Mache, arrived on English soil and one of them changed their name to Mashford because they marched over a ford.

I think this story is a bit of a stretch given that 'mache' in French means 'chewed.' How on earth would you get a surname like 'chewed'? Did they make 'papier mache' and hence were landed with the nickname which became the surname? No wonder they changed it to something sensible like Mashford as soon as they arrived in the incredibly sensible country of England.

We seem to have stumbled into 'silly surname' territory with this search. Although not as silly as the name of one famous Partridge seat - Wisbanger. Now there's a name.! Wisbanger,which came into the hands of the Partridge family in 1557 may well have been as 'whizz-bang' as the name suggests.

As the records state:
'The manor house itself is very quaint and picturesque, as may be seen from the cut herewith presented. It was rebuilt and a porch added in 1578 by Robert Partridge, then head of the house, and the impaled coat of arms of Robert and his wife Anne may still be seen, carved in stone over the front entrance. [See Burke's "Landed Gentry," Vol. ii, pp. 1056-57.]

John Partridge, of Wisbanger, seems to be the one to whom this estate was originally granted. He was succeeded by his son William, who was member of parliament for Rochester in the fourteenth year of Elizabeth (1572). (I suspect William of Wisbanger had quite a time of it as a kid.)

Miles Partridge, brother of William, was a man of note, and one who played a prominent part in the history of those troublesome times.

He was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire during the last years of the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547), and received from that monarch a grant of the manor of Almondsbury (Amesbury). He was a friend and comrade of the unfortunate Duke of Somerset, whom he accompanied in his Scottish expedition, and was knighted for conspicuous bravery on the battlefield of Pinkie (September 10, 1547)'.

Sir Miles Partridge also lost his head on February 26, 1552 having fallen foul of Henry VIII along with the Duke of Somerset and sundry others. However, clearly there were plenty of Partridges to make up the loss of one and perhaps there were others who had also risen to noble rank. Given the longevity of the Partridge family, the 'story' may well be sourced in an ancient truth. A truth which is interesting rather than important.

Colebrooke, by the way, is the birthplace of the famous English wrestler, Abraham Cann .... perhaps a relation on the Cann side of the family if we can ascertain that Mary Mashford, whom I think was Elizabeth's 'aunt' or step-grandmother, gave her son John the middle name of Cann because it was her maiden name.

But, back to Elizabeth and the family story of her ancestry. While the evidence is circumstantial, it is weighty all the same. We have place, birth records and dates which fit the family story. There's not much 'noble' in the connection, at least by today's standards, but enough to justify the story Elizabeth's mother and family told to her and which she in turn told her children and they handed down through the generations until my father and other's of his generation, told their children.

Times have changed and it's not a story I would consider important enough to tell my children and perhaps that is why now is the right time to finally lay it to rest in some 'bed of truth.'
 
There is more checking to be done but it looks like we may well have brought a modicum of 'justice' to our bastard Elizabeth nearly two centuries after her birth. I like to think so anyway.

A Partridge in the family tree?

LEFT: A scene from rural Devon.

There is no denying that Devon is a pretty place and the countryside in which Elizabeth Mashford was born is some of the prettiest. I wonder did she pine for those lush green fields during the heat of an Australian summer's day? Or did she leave it all behind; simply grateful to be free in a new country with little or no class system and far, far greater opportunities for her children?

One thing is sure, it is unlikely that the little girl had much time to play, let alone sit back and admire scenery. But who knows. Perhaps she bathed in a stream or washed her clothes in one and in the doing found respite from a life of constant drudgery.

In that changing way of mind which seems to be part and parcel of this process, I am now thinking that Partridge is a more likely 'surname' for our bastard Elizabeth.

The reasons are two-fold: a. the name Haynes did not appear until she married Edward Atkins and b. there is a Partridge family which has had a presence in Devon since the 16th century. They are not 'noble' in the truest sense, but they are certainly an 'old' family and compared to the Mashfords were no doubt very wealthy.

The family story handed down by my father and numerous other relatives,  of a 'noble' family, may have really been a story of a 'rich' family. The Mashfords were pretty much as 'poor as church mice' from what I can see so 'rich' in their terms may not have been 'rich' in real terms. It did not take much to be the 'betters' of the Mashfords. And time and distance can embellish the truth quite nicely.

The Partridge family were farmers and clearly quite well-off given the lands they owned in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Nymet Mills,Hawkridge Farm,Park Mill, Parsonage Farm or Easington in the Nymet Rowland/Lapford/Coldridge areas  were where the Partridges lived and farmed in the 1700-1800's.

ABOVE: Parsonage Farm, Winkleigh Devon. Now an acclaimed B&B.

And one of these holdings, Parsonage Farm,  was situated in Winkleigh, Devon. The Partridge family has a long history in Winkleigh and this is where I found a record of an Elizabeth Mashford's birth with mother Elizabeth Mashford and father ? Partridg(e). The lack of a christian name for the father is unusual and the fact that the child took her mother's name is a good bet she was illegitimate.

Checking the parish records for the birth is likely to be the only way this can be confirmed. In the meantime, in that 'jigsaw' way of things, our 'maybe' looks a bit more of a 'likely' given that our family story can be made to 'fit' the time and the place.

And while the Partridge's were not 'noble' in the sense one would give to that word, they certainly had 'noble lineage' and would have been seen to be amongst the 'better classes' in the little village of Winkleigh in the early 19th century when Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins was born.

LEFT: Winkleigh around 1900. No doubt recognisable to Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins even after fifty years.

So, not much chance of anything 'grand' to be found in the Mashford past. And it is a reminder of how the way that we 'interpret' words influences what we believe. I am sure, living in the wilds of the Wirrabarra Forest, surrounded by the anarchic drift of Australian bush, that a large farming estate in Devon could have seemed pretty 'grand' to the illegitimate Elizabeth. Or perhaps, like so many illegitimate children, what was important to her was keeping the memory alive of a father she never knew and a life which had been denied to her.

But times change for everyone and these days Parsonage Farm, in Winkleigh, bordered by the Rivers Torridge and Okement, is a family dairy farm which offers B&B accommodation. It's an ordinary looking house by today's standards, but Elizabeth's story is not about today's standards but about the world in which she lived. To the poorest of the poor in the early 19th century it would have seemed a very grand house indeed.

Did Elizabeth's mother work there? Probably. There would not have been much opportunity for a servant girl to meet the son of a wealthy farmer... or perhaps the wealthy farmer himself .... otherwise. The other possibility is that she worked for a trader and delivered goods to the house.

Whatever the truth it is unlikely that Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins was brought into being through much more than a momentary encounter. Any father she had would have been only in a biological sense, although that, in the times, as today can count for quite a bit.

And perhaps, as she talked to her children about the world she had left behind, the truth became even more prettily embroidered until it became a tale of a child, born to be a 'lady' but denied it because of her birth?

What is interesting is that Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins clearly did talk to her children about her birth or it could not have been handed down through her descendants. The shame of illegitimacy was great and yet she still felt compelled to talk of it. Perhaps, so far away, on long nights, beneath star-glittering inky skies, she felt it did not matter if her children knew .... or for that matter, her husband.


Our family story also says that the wife of Elizabeth's  father was actively involved in having his bastard removed from sight. Given that she was in her late twenties when she took ship for Australia, this is probably unlikely. Unless of course she grew up to be such a mirror image of her mother that 'painful' memories were triggered in Mrs Partridge and she took action to remove them forthwith.

Conjecture, convolutions, convicts and the commonplace

LEFT: The first view convicts had of Australia.

The conjectural nature of ancestry research gets convoluted at the best of times.

It's pretty much all on a wing and a prayer but I am a great believer in the reality of intuition. Given the meagre and commonplace nature of much of the information which comes to hand, intuition is probably a better guide.

Like any 'investigation' the evidence which initially comes to hand is in the form of 'clues,' 'signs', 'possible leads', 'likely scenarios,' and an understanding of the circumstances, the human condition and the times. Pulling 'out' the obscure and 'broken' bits of information and trying to clarify them is like working away with a small brush on some archeological dig; not knowing if what you have found is of any value, but needing all the same to work away at the 'residue' until something is revealed.

Any investigator, whether criminal, archeological or genealogical will rely upon instinct some of the time.... if not a lot of the time. Ironically, the greatest archeological finds in history have been made by amateurs who were not held back by academic rules, regulations and expectations and who simply followed their gut instincts. One of the most famous was the discovery of the ancient site of Troy, by Heinrich Schliemann; adventurer, speaker of 15 languages, world traveller, and gifted amateur archaeologist. Schlieman ignored the theories of the day and pushed on regardless. No doubt like The Fool in the Tarot Deck, he needed to close his ears to the stories which others told and to take a leap into the unknown; following his own heart and his own intuition.

Schlieman pored over Homer's writings, particularly The Iliad, in a search for clues to the lost city. And then he spent years in the dirt and dust trying to put those clues into place. Genealogy is a tidier passion but just as demanding of time and effort. One great benefit today is the internet; a valuable tool when one is 'riding on instinct.' There is nothing which cannot be instantly explored, at least at a superficial level. And the 'net' also allows information to be 'drawn' to the search.  Information 'posted' on the net becomes available to the millions of 'spiders' which constantly 'search' for relevant words. It brought a photograph of Elizabeth Mashford (Lewis) Atkins which most of her descendants did not know existed.

Whether information is ultimately found to be right, wrong or inconclusive, the reality is that the more information which is put up on the internet, the greater the chance of being found by a researcher who might just have more information. It has certainly happened before and hopefully will happen again.

At this point my intuition is telling me that Edward Atkins may well have been a convict or, more likely, the son of a convict. It may all end as a dead-end but it is one possibility which needs to be explored. There is always a reason why things are as they are and why people do what they do.

Immigrant records to South Australia are quite good but there appears to be no trace of Edward Atkins arriving. And, when he did 'appear' at his marriage to Hannah McLeod in 1843 he did not put down his father's name. Family ties were strong in the 19th century and honouring one's mother and father was expected. There is a reason why he did not name his father. We just don't know what it was.

However, by 1857 he was prepared to write Joseph on his marriage certificate. What had changed? Probably his attidude or his circumstances. He was older, wiser and perhaps felt safer. Or perhaps his father was dead. Whatever the truth, in 1857 we have a name and a time-frame which might lead to the origin of the Atkins family.

Edward Atkins, if his age at death is correct, was born in 1813. However, given the inaccuracies of age at the time, it is safer to assume that he was born sometime around 1810... give or take five years either way. But, working on 1813, he was 30 when he married Hannah McLeod which suggests he may well have been married before and lost his wife; or he was too poor to marry any younger.

A lot of birth, marriage and death records are not available online yet and if Edward was born in another State, or married in another State, it will take time to find any information .... should it even exist. Many of the earliest records from Australia's settlers have been lost or destroyed. But, we have to start somewhere and on a positive note, convict records are probably more comprehensive and more available than most.

Was Joseph Atkins a convict?  Edward's age-frame suggests that his father could have been born  anytime between 1760 and 1790. There are three Joseph Atkins recorded as convicts arriving in Australia between 1792 and 1803.

A Joseph Atkins of Hampshire was convicted in 1801 and was given a life sentence. He arrived at Sydney on The Glatton, in 1803. At this point I know nothing more about him but he remains a possibility.

A Joseph Atkins was one of 325 convicts transported to the colonies for 14 years and arriving at Sydney on the Royal Admiral in May of 1792. However, this Joseph Atkins is listed in New South Wales and Norfold Deaths as being dying later that same year on December 3, 1792. So it is definitely not him.

And then there is Joseph Atkins, of Middlesex who was convicted in The Old Bailey, London, in 1789 and given a seven year sentence, arriving at Sydney on The Salamander, as part of the Third Convict Fleet, in 1791.

While no further details, including age, are as yet available, this Joseph is a 'strong' possibility for two reasons;

 a. he would have gained his freedom in 1796-8 - convicts could get a Ticket of Leave after serving four years -  and would fit the time-frame for Edward's birth around 1810 and b. a Richard Haynes was on the same ship.

ABOVE: A record of Joseph Atkins trial at the Old Bailey in 1789.

The Haynes name may well be a link in terms of tracing Edward Atkins' family. I had originally thought it was connected to Elizabeth but the fact that none of her Lewis children were given the name Haynes makes me wonder if it was a name which was important to Edward instead.

A Joseph Haynes arrived at the same time as Joseph Atkins; on the ship Kent which was also a part of the Third Fleet. Death records show a Joseph Haynes, Parramatta Convict dying on December 1, 1791 shortly after arriving; an infant, Sarah Haynes died on December 6, 1792 - parents John and Ann; Richard Haynes, who travelled on The Salamander with Joseph Atkins died in March 1794 and William Haynes, who came out as a convict on the first fleet in 1788, died July 9, 1801, at Parramatta.

So there was clearly a large Haynes family in Parramatta at the same time that Joseph Atkins was serving out his sentence. Given that one member of the family had travelled on the same ship with him, from England to Australia, it is feasible, if not likely, that an attachement was formed with the family and perhaps with the woman who would become his wife.

So, for the moment, this Joseph Atkins looks to be a possibility. There is quite a bit of general information on his court case and transportation, but nothing specific enough to make the link more certain. This is the 'maybe likely' stage.

The Old Bailey Records show:

Joseph Atkins, theft from a specified place, 22nd April, 1789.

Joseph Atkins was indicted for stealing on the 6th of January, twenty pounds weight of leaden pipe, value 3s. the property of John Lisle, affixed to his dwelling house, against the statue.

JOHN LISLE sworn.


I am a house-keeper , the lead was stole from the house in which I live, I lost it on the 6th of January, I don't recollect the day of the week, it was about eight o'clock in the morning; I saw it on the day before when the water came in, I knew it to be my property; one of the tenants gave me information of it's being stolen.


WRIGHT sworn.


I am a watchman, I took the prisoner, he had a sack on his back; I took him with the property; I knew him before.


GUILTY .


Transported for seven years .


Tried by the first Middlesex Jury before Mr. ROSE

It seems a trivial crime but these were the days when people were transported for stealing a loaf of bread and I am sure that a length of lead pipe would have been worth a lot in those days.

ABOVE: From one hell to another - prison, ship and the new colony.

He sailed on the 27th March 1791, from Plymouth, on the Salamander, part of the Third Fleet, in the charge of Lieutenant Richard Bowen as Naval Agent. A total of 160 males embarked, there were 5 deaths aboard, and 155 disembarked. The Salamander was a vessel of 320 tons, the Master being a, J . Nichol The ship had been turned by a Thames shipyard in 1776.

It appears that The Salamander and the other ships in the fleet had several attempts at leaving Plymouth before they succeeded. The Salamander sailed with the Plymouth Division of the third fleet accompanied by the ships, William and Anne, and the Atlantic.

The main fleet sailed in two divisions; the Atlantic, Salamander and William & Ann left Plymouth on 27 Mar 1791 while the Albemarle, Active, Admiral Barrington, Britannia and Mathilda left Portsmouth on the same day. The Mary Ann had sailed more than a month earlier and HMS Gorgon had made her departure on 15 March 1791. However, the ships reached Port Jackson over a period which extended from ( July 1791 (Mary Ann) to 16 October 1791 (Admiral Barrington).

While the ships of the Plymouth division stayed together until the Salamander parted company near the equator, those of the Portsmouth division were soon scattered by stormy weather almost from the first night at sea. With the fleet scattered miles apart a mutiny erupted on the Abermarle which resulted in summary execution for two of the convicts. They were hanged at the yardarm on the day of the mutiny, 9 April 1791.

It was a time when crime and criminals were seen in black and white terms and those who offended were believed to be of inferior nature. Making an example of them was seen as a way to 'teach' other inferiors how to behave. It would be many decades before more enlightened people made the association between crime and poverty.

The Plymouth division regrouped at Rio de Janeiro and sailed from that port together. But more bad weather separated them. All three ships sailed directly from Rio to Port Jackson. This was the first time that ships had made the journey without a stopover in Cape Town. Ships of the Portsmouth division variously raced and limped into Port Jackson. The Atlantic was the first ship to sail non-stop from Rio de Janeiro to Sydney and The Salamander was the second. The Salamander arrived at Port Jackson on the 21st August 1791, 147 days out of Plymouth.

From the NEW HOLLAND MORNING POST", 18th October, 1791


A LIST OF CRIMINALS (including Joseph Atkins and members of the Haynes family) who have come to our shores in recent months

Our readers will find hereunder a List of Persons transported as Criminals to New South Wales in the Ships as following, via: Atlantic, William and Ann, Britannia, Matilda, Salamander, Albemarle, Mary Anne, Admiral Barrington, Active and Gorgon.

THE THIRD FLEET of 11 ships arrived in 1791, with over 2000 convicts. The newspaper report states that 194 male convicts and 4 female convicts died during the voyage, and that though conditions on board ship weren't as 'diabolical' as the previous year, they were still outrageous.

While conditions in English prisons were horrendous, so too were conditions on the ships and at this time, pretty bad in the New South Wales colony. From one hell on earth to another and then another. But there is no denying that the citizens of the New South Wales colony, no matter how bad their situation, were absolutely horrified by what arrived on their shore.

The Sydney Cove Chronicle 30TH JUNE, 1790 states:


At last the transports are here DIABOLICAL CONDITION OF THE CONVICTS THEREON 278 died on the fearsome journey to Sydney Cove.

Less than one month since, the cry of “The flag’s up” rang upon our hopeless community and sent our Spirits soaring upwards, our hope renewed and our bellies filled.

Since the Lady Juliana hove to in Sydney Cove upon that day, four more ships have arrived in the Fleet, and our Joy at receiving the newcomers has turned to exceeding distress.

The sights that have confronted us within the month past have been sights shocking indeed to all Christian Humanity. We have seen the consequences of diabolical outrages committed in the name of Justice.


We have seen Human Beings, with minds and souls and emotions, that have suffered as greatly as their bodies, crawling upon our shores like wild beasts upon all fours, so feeble, so starved, so crippled they were.


Indeed, as our most excellent Governor Phillip was heard to remark upon observing with great distress and pity the scenes at the unloading of the transports, To bring men and women to this Colony in such a manner was like murdering them.


The Transports departed from England with a consignment of more than one thousand convicts – we find ourselves at this time unable to be more exact.

The Neptune carried 424 convicts. Upon arrival, we are informed, 147 had died during the voyage. This same ship of death carried 78 female convicts, and 11 are no more, due to the iniquitous misuse they received while upon their journey. The Scarborough carried 259 male convicts. We learn 73 expired before the ship weighed anchor at Port Jackson. The Surprize carried 256 male convicts and it is believed 42 breathed their last while being transported.


The remaining transport shows improvement. The Lady Juliana carried 226 female convicts and only five failed to survive the voyage. The remainder are in remarkable health. Whilst we must stress that these figures are only such as we have been able to estimate due to the confusion that reigns upon our Settlement, and a later assessment may cause them thus to be amended, our Readers can do nothing but concur that the numbers of those expired, 278 in all, make a total shocking to any man with Human Sensibilities.


It will be remembered that only 48 persons expired upon our own voyage two years since, despite hazardous health conditions and inclemencies of the weather.


The landing of those who remained alive despite their misuse upon the recent voyage, could not fail to horrify those who watched.

ABOVE: England's prisons were overcrowded and convicts often spent months or years on rotting prison hulks before being transported.

As they came on shore, these wretched people were hardly able to move hand or foot. Such as could not carry themselves upon their legs, crawled upon all fours. Those who, through their afflictions, were not able to move, were thrown over the side of the ships, as sacks of flour would be thrown, into the small boats.


Some expired in the boats; others as they reached the shore. Some fainted and were carried by those who fared better. More had not the opportunity even to leave their ocean prisons for as they came upon decks, the fresh air only hastened their demise.


A sight most outrageous to our eyes were the marks of leg irons upon the convicts, some so deep that one could nigh on see the bones.


The scenes on shore at the present are truly piteous. The two Hospitals, one of which was brought by the Justinian, are filled with the screams of those in agony, and the murmurings of those in delirium. Those for whom there is no room in the Hospitals lie beneath their tents, their bodies trembling from scurvy, dysentery and fever.


Those convicts who were able to manage for themselves are stealing food from the very hands of those too ill to make protest or dying. We may expect many more to breathe their last this night, and in some instances the Fearsome Shadow will prove a most happy release from their death agonies.


We learn that several children have been borne to women upon the Lady Juliana, the cause for which were the crews abroad African slave ships which met up with the transport at Santa Cruz.


Full wonder it is, indeed, that these children have survived, and provident it is that they came into the world upon a ship whose captain was endowed with Christian rectitude and generosity.

Conditions in the new colony were hardly easy which makes the horror expressed about the treatment of convicts on the long journey to Australia that much more damning. And such expressions of horror and condemnation would ultimately have an impact upon Mother England. These were the days when the 'worst of things' happened on such journeys and over time conditions would gradually improve.

In another report, from The Reverend Richard Johnson:

The Reverend Richard Johnson, whose Moral Rectitude and Charitable Forbearance are well known within this Settlement, was the first man to board the convict ship, Surprize.



In an interview later with this Christian Gentlemen, he revealed to your Correspondent his deep distress and horror at the sights he beheld below deck aboard that ship. He remarked that it would e’er be a long time, if ever, that he could forget the misery he had witnessed.


The convicts, he said, we in a most piteous state. Some were half-clothed, some we nigh on naked. Even the dead and dying were still in leg irons. Their discomfort, grievous as it was, was made even more so by the lack of beds or bedding.


There was much moaning and groaning from the wretched individuals, who lay in filthy heaps. Lice abounded, and the odour which arose was foul and fetid.


The Reverend Gentleman spoke of convicts who had breathed their last after the ship had entered our harbour, whereupon their lifeless and wasted bodies were thrown naked upon the rocks.


It will gratify the men of our Settlement that His Majesty’s Ministers will hear of the diabolical atrocities committed in the name of the Government.


It will gratify the men of Our Settlement that the scurrilous rogues responsible for those atrocities be brought to account for their inhuman treatment of the convicts – for Englishmen those convicts still remain, though outcast from society through their misdeeds.


Without a doubt, His Excellency, Governor Phillip, will make it exceeding plain to the Authorities the condition in which the unhappy wretches, committed already to their punishment by England’s Judges, were punished even more so within their ocean prisons.


He has already shewn his anger to the Masters of the transports on many occasions, holding them responsible for the skeletons of men they brought to us. He treatment of the convicts on most of the transports, particularly the Neptune, has been savagely brutal.


We have learned that men were so heavily fettered below deck they scarce could move. We have learned that those same fetters were kept upon those men despite agonising sufferings – and that some died still in their chains.


The demoniacal and barbarous treatment of not permitting convicts to take a goodly portion of fresh air daily, of keeping them below deck in foul and rancid atmospheres, of encouraging vermin and filth to accumulate in such environments, will not be tolerated by men of Sensibility.


Starvation was added to the sufferings of the wretched consignment from England. Even the men and Officers of the NSW Corps had reason to complain about the shortage of rations. Yet we know the ships must have been well-provisioned, for immediately they arrived some of the masters opened stores and exposed large quantities of goods at extortionate prices, despite which they were eagerly bought.


Captain William Hill, of the NSW Corps, who travelled upon the transport, Surprize, has described to your Correspondent the outrageous conditions on board, and added that the slave trade from Africa is merciful indeed, compared to some of the scenes he witnessed during the voyage. He states he will never recover from such sights.


The carriage of the convicts was in the hands of private contractors, and it is well known that contractors are economical fellows. They had much to gain by overcrowding conditions and by reducing supplies of rations.

ABOVE: Convicts were put to work building roads for the new colony.

The appalling state of the men and women who were thrown, dragged, dropped or who fell, crawled or hobbled off these ships was reflective of one of the darkest times in history. The convicts suffered perhaps more than the miserable creatures chained on slave ships.... if only because slaves were a valuable commodity and convicts were inferior beings who needed to be taught a lesson; the dregs of humanity with no right to live in a civilized society.

It is yet another irony, that Australia, birthed from such 'dregs' has grown to become one of the most pleasant, efficient, sophisticated, just and law-abiding countries in the world. When you start at the bottom there is only one way to go and that is up. In 1791 when Joseph Atkins arrived, the 'way up' may have seemed almost impossible. But, because of the courage and hard work of convicts, soldiers and settlers, his descendants, whether they be mine or not, can live in order, harmony and beauty today.

But  all of this was a long way in the future. The colony itself was in dire straits. The Guardian, one of the ships in the convoy, had hit an iceberg. Many of the crew were saved and the ship was towed to shore but eventually abandoned. More crucially, along with its loss went provisions which would have kept the colony fed for two years. The settlement was in despair.

WOE TO OUR YOUNG SETTLEMENT Deplorable paucity of provisions stores and cloathing:

So the Guardian is lost and with it our provisions. What, in the name of Heaven, is to become of us?
Our people are feeble, we have many hundreds more mouths to feed, and our larder is far from adequate.


The atmosphere that prevails in our small Settlement differs exceedingly from that joyous day near one month since, when the cry of “The flag’s up” rang forth and a ship carrying the British colours was espied for the first time in two and one half years.


The did we present a scene of happiness, of kissing those nearest us, of being so overcome in our emotions as to make us insensible even of speech.


Today, we are a veritable picture of misery, and the distressing and deplorable condition in which our newcomers find themselves – more of that in other columns of this Journal – does nothing to alleviate our pitiable state.

Her Majesty’s Government must know what is going on. We cannot be left to starve.


It has been made known to the Authorities that our paucity of provisions, stores, cloathing and tools places us in a diabolical position.




We have eaten not one ounce of fresh meat these three years since – save the flesh of the kangaroo, fish, and birds, which are variable both in quantity and quality. Much of the livestock we brought with us has wandered off, died or been killed.

And the food, such as we have, is, apart from that carried by the storeship, Justinian, and the transports themselves, three years old.

ABOVE: Conditions in the new colony were difficult for convicts, soldiers and settlers alike.

Vast quantities of flour has been spoiled, and condemned as unfit for use, and were it not for the recent arrivals, it would have been finished in November. Likewise, our pork would have lasted only two weeks more, and our rice until September.

No soul upon this Earth could accuse us of improvidence. Since our arrival in New Holland we have been rationed with our supplies, in the first instance to seven pounds of bread or flour weekly; seven pounds of beef or four pounds of pork; three pints of pease; six ounces of butter; and one half pound of rice.


Since that time our rations have been reduced on two occasions, until at the time when the Lady Juliana was sighted, we were receiving the miserable amount of two and one half pounds of flour, two pounds of pork and two pounds of rice, weekly.


We have become feeble, unable to work more than three hours in one day without severe discomfort. Scurvy has become rift. Our sufferings both of body and spirit have indeed been great.

No wonder so many convicts died within a few years of arriving. Joseph Atkins, of Middlesex, is not however listed among the dead. We can only presume he lived, at least long enough to marry, have children and possibly to gain his freedom.

A Joseph Atkins died in Parramatta,  in 1875 at the age of 97. Is it Joseph Atkins who came out as a convict in 1791? He would have been thirteen when he arrived and  seventeen if he got an early ticket of leave or twenty if he did not, when he gained his freedom. And if he is the father of our Edward, he would have been born in 1778 and about 30 when his son was born.

However, I have just found a record of a Joseph Atkins, born Middlesex, 1776. If this Joseph can be linked through age with the Joseph Atkins convicted in the Old Bailey then the only thing left to do is connect him with our Edward Atkins. Many things are unlikely but nothing is impossible with ancestry research.