Sentencing of Jane Fletcher (1786-1832) of Orleton, Herefordshire

I was provided with a transcript of Jane Fletcher's sentencing by a fellow descendant. I've previously written about her death sentence reprieve, and commution to life transportation:

http://thehistoryofmatt.blogspot.com/2009/01/jane-fletcher-sentencing-in-1803.html

Born at Orleton, Herefordshire, England in 1786, daughter of Richard and Tabitha FLETCHER. Following sentencing and reprive, she was transported to Australia on the 'Experiment' arriving in June 1804. In New South Wales she married Rowland Edwards (1804), then after his death in 1814 she married John Allen. She died in 1832 in the Richmond district.

Her tragic trial was at the Hereford Assizes, the trial being on the 15th March 1803. The transcript of the court records has a note at the bottom 'Transcribed by Carol Bergen from public record office document ref: assi5/123/9 43832'. Transcript (with a summary below):

"HEREFORDSHIRE. The jurors for our Lord the King upon their oath present that Jane Fletcher late of the parish of orleton in the county of Hereford. Single woman on the 26th day of august in the forty second year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the 3rd by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of great britain and ireland King defender of the faith. Her being big with a male child the same day and year at the parish, aforesaid in the county, aforesaid, but the providence of God, did bring forth the said male child alive of the body of her. The said Jane Fletcher, alone and in secret, which said male child to being born alive by the laws of this realm was a male bastard and that the said Jane Fletcher, not having the fear of God before her eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil afterwards towit on the said 26th day of august in the year aforesaid, as soon as the said male bastard child was born alive of the body of her the said Jane Fletcher, the said Jane Fletcher with force and arms at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid and in and when the said male bastard child in the peace of God and our said Lord the king then and there being feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought did make an assault and that the said Jane Fletcher with a certain iron spade with a wooden handle of the value of 2 pence which the said Jane Fletcher in both her hands then and there had and held the said male bastard child in and upon the left side of the neck of him the said male bastard child then and there feloniously and willfully out of her malice and aforethought did strike and act giving unto him the said male bastard child then and there with the said iron spade bu the whole act in the manner aforesaid in and upon the left side of the neck of him the said male bastard child one mortal wound of the length of six inches and the depth of one inch of which the said mortal wound to the said male bastard child on the said 26th day of august in the year aforesaid at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid then and there instantly died and that Tabetha Fletcher the wife of Robert Flecther late of the said parish of orleton a labourer at the time of committing the felony and murder aforesaid by the said Jane Fletcher in manner and for in aforesaid feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought was present aiding, helping, abetting, assisting, comforting and maintaining the said Jane Fletcher the felony and murder aforesaid in manner and pain aforesaid to do commit and perpetrate and so the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid to further say that the said Jane Fletcher and Tabetha Fletcher slain the said male bastard child then and there in a manner and form aforesaid feloniously willfully of their malice aforethought did kill and murder against the peace of our said Lord the king his crown and dignity and the jurors aforesaid upon their oath will further present that the said Jane Fletcher on the 26th day of august in the 42nd year of the reign of our said sovereign lord George the 3rd by the grace of God of the united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland declared king defender of the faith her being big with male child the same day and year at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid by the providence of God did bring forth the said male alive of the body of her the said Jane Fletcher alone and in secret which said male child to being born alive by the laws of this realm was a male bastard and that the said Jane Fletcher not having the fear of God before her eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil afterwards towit on the said 26th day of august in the year aforesaid as soon as te said male bastard child was born alive of the body of her the said Jane Fletcher the said Jane Fletcher with force and arms at the paris aforesaid in the county aforesaid and in and when the said male bastard child in the peace of God and our said Lord the king then and there being feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought did make an assault and that the said Jane Fletcher with a certain iron spade with a wooden handle of the value of 2 pence which the said Jane Fletcher in both her hands then and there had and held the said male bastard child in and upon the left side of the neck of him the said male bastard child then and there feloniously and willfully out of her malice and aforethought did strike and act giving unto him the said male bastard child then and there with with said iron spade by the stroke and cut in the manner aforesaid in and upon the left side of the neck of him the said male bastard child a mortal wound on the length of 6 inches and the depth of 1 inch and the said Jane Fletcher then and there feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought did put both her hands on and around the neck of him the said child then and there fixed him the said child and did feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought did choke and strangle of which said mortal wound choking and strangling he the said child there and then instantly died that is said Tabitha Fletcher at the time of committing the felong and murder last aforesaid by the neck Jane Fletcher in manner and form last effort in feloniously willfully and of her malice aforethought to carer present aiding, helping, abetting, assisting, comforting and maintaining the said Jane Fletcher in the felony and murder last aforesaid in manner and form last aforesaid to do commit and perpetrate and so the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid to further try that the said Jane Fletcher and Tabetha Fletcher trial the said male bastard child then and there in a manner and form last aforesaid feloniously willfully out of their malice aforethought did kill and murder against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity."

Jane was found guilty and sentenced to death:

From Worcester News, 21 Mar 1803"At Hereford Assizes yesterday, Jane Fletcher, aged only 15, for the murder of her new born bastard child, was capitally convicted and sentenced to death."

Her mother was acquitted:

Hereford Journal, 23 Mar 1803"Assizes. At our Assizes, which ended on Friday evening, Joseph Fowke, alias Coft, for stealing a sheep, the property of Thomas Field, of Whitboum; and Jane Fletcher, aged 15, for the murder of her newborn bastard child, were capitally convicted, and received sentence of death; the former is reprieved, and the latter was to have been exectuted on Monday last, but is respited to the second of May next. John Teague, found guilty of forgery at the last Assizes, received setence of death, but was reprieved before the Judges left the city. William Dally, for stealing three pigs, was ordered to seven years transportation. Phebe Griffiths, for uttering in payment several counterfeir pieces, called Shillings; and Priscilla Clarke, for receiving stolen goods, were ordered to twelve months imprisonment. John hardwick for stealing oak plans; Martha Cooke, for stealing a quantity of wool from off a sheep, the property of William Wathen; and Ann Cooke for  stealing a great-coat, the property of Mr. Cobun, Su Tavern, in this city, were sentenced to six months imprisonment. - Tabitha Fletcher, implicated with her daughter Jane Fletcher; Walter ?, charged with the murder of his father; Sarah Pingree, for the murder of her new born bastard child; Thomas Butcher, for sheep stealing; James haynes, for stealing wearing apparel; Harriet Vo?, implicated as an accessary with Priscilla Clare; John Pheasant, for having in his possession two forger notes; and Edward Gwilt, for stealing a pail, were all acquitted."

 

The enoerous legal language of the charge above can be distilled to the following grizzly and tragic:

"HEREFORDSHIRE. That Jane Fletcher of Orleton, Hereford, Single woman, on the 26th of August, 1802, gave birth to a male bastard child. That as soon as the child was born she assaulted the child with an iron spade with a wooden handle of the value of 2 pence, inflicting upon the left side of the neck of the child a mortal wound of the length of six inches and the depth of one inch, and then strangled the child, instantly killing the child. That Tabetha Fletcher the wife of Robert Fletcher of Orleton, was present aiding and abetting her daughter Jane Fletcher.

One can't imagine the circumstances that drove a 15 year old girl to kill her child.

Rowland Edwards (7)

Continuing with the series of articles on the murderers of Rowland Edwards, along with the report of the release of the wrongly accused, the Sydney Gazette of Saturday 30th July 1814 ran with an announcement from the Governor. It addressed various aspects of the case and circumstances, and was to be read in all churches the next day during sermon (no doubt in part to reach the ears of the illiterate). The first part of the announcement reinforced that it was illegal to hide/harbor escaped or runaway convicts - a difficult task given how many ex-convicts lived free in the colony and the relative isolation of many parts of outer Sydney. The announcement also rues the fact that Donovan went to the gallows still denying that he comitted a murder. The courts almost hung two innocent men, but the advertisement places the blame with the perpetrators, rather than the court that sentenced them. This has never set comforatbly with me.




Sydney Gazette and NSW Advertiser
Saturday 30th July 1814
Page 1
GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL ORDERS
CIVIL DEPARTMENT
Secretary’s Office, Sydney
Saturday 23rd July 1814
1. THE GOVERNOR and COMMANDER in CHIEF having performed the painful Duty of consigning to an ignominious Death for of his Fellow Creatures, lately convicted before the Criminal Court of a Series of Offences too shocking and atrocious to admit of any Mitigation of their Sentences : He now feels it is incumbent on him to observe, that had the Settlers and other Inhabitants of the Country taken those Pains to apprehend Runaways and Bushrangers, which their Duty as good Subjects required, the chief Part if not all of the Murders now brought to light, would have been avoided, and thus four Men, and one Woman, peaceable and unoffending Persons, saved from deplorable and untimely Ends, and possibly their Murderers themselves reserved for a better Fate than has attended their flagrant crimes.
2. THE GOVERNOR trusts that the melancholy Occurences herein alluded to and the Sacrifices now of Necessity made in the offender ?? of God and Man, will have their due influence in deterring the regular inhabitants in future from harbouring, or in any Manner countenancing such lawless Banditti as have for some time infested the Coutrny, and rendered the necessary Intercourses of Life full of Danger ; and he most earnestly entreats each Individual of the Society, for the Benefit of the Whole, to do his utmost in apprehending those Bush Rangers who are still at large, and from whom acts of Atrocity, similar to those now adverted to, may be expected unless speedily secured and delivered over to Justice.
3. Any Persons who shall be known after this Admonition to harbour or hold Intercourse with Runaways, or Bush Rangers, will forfeit every Indulgence on the Part of Government which they may at present enjoy, and be punished with the utmost rigour of the Law, when the Offence shall be proved.
4. The GOVERNOR cannot reflect, but with the greatest Abhorrence, on the unparalleled Depravity exhibited by one of the lately executed Malefactors, namely, Dennis Donovan, at the Instant he was about to be precipitated into Eternity, for Crimes of the blackest and most detestable Nature. At such an awful Moment, all Artifice, all Disguise is supposed to cease, as being no further useful in this World, and the unfortunate Criminal is expected to think, then, only, of making his Peace with his offended Creator, by an open Confession of his Guilt, accompanied with a fervent Prayer, to the Throne of Grace, for Mercy. Such a Line of Conduct would naturally excite general Commiseration for the wretched Man, however depraved his former Life had been ; but instead of such Confession, Humiliation, and Contrition, this Malefactor (shocking to relate), went out of Life protesting in the most solemn Manner his total Innocence of the Murders of the two unfortunate Men, Jenkins and Edwards, at the Parramatta Turnpike House, which in (in Addition to the several Crimes for which he then suffered), he was strongly suspected to be concerned ; although it is now clearly proved, that he was one of the Perpetrators ; and whilst two Men (since proved innocent), then stood convicted of those Murders, under erroneous Testimony, and were on the Eve of atoning for them by an ignominious Death. In this Manner did Dennis Donovan, with his latest Breath, and without other apparent Motive than the most detestible Maligulty to his fellow Creatures, and to Human Nature itself, endeavour to deprive two innocent Men of their Lives, for a Murder perpetrated by himself, in Conjunction with John White, who yesterday suffered the sentence of the Law, on his own Confession, and the clear Evidence of others.
5. The providential Discovery of the real Murderers of Jenkins and Edwards, which has saved the Lives of two innocent Men, is to be attributed to the humane, zealous, and indefatigable Exertions of D WENTWORTH, Esq. Superintendant of the Police ; and the GOVERNOR desires to make him this public Acknowledgement of this Thanks, for his praise-worthy and well-directed Measures on that Occasion.
6. The Chaplains in the several Districts are to read this Order in their respective Churches or Places of Public Worship, durin the Time of Divine Service, on Sunday the 31st Instant, and on Sunday the 7th of August next.
By Command of His Excellency
The Governor,
J T CAMPBELL, Secretary.

Rowland Edwards (6)

Following from my previous posts on the murder of Rowland Edwards, the next issue of the Sydney Gazzette carried a report on the release of the wrongfully accused pending a pardon from the King.

Sydney Gazette and NSW Advertiser
Saturday 30th July 1814, page 2
The space necessarily occupied by the report of the Criminal Trial in the Gazette of last week, precluded the admission of one of the most gratifying results that ever engaged the public feeling. The trial of John White occupied the whole of Wednesday, and the Court adjourned to three o’clock on Thursday afternoon ; when Michael Hoollaghan and Alexander Suitar, who had on 25th ult. received sentence of condemnation, were recalled to the bar, as a necessary preliminary to their liberation from confinement, as their total innocence of the dreadful crime of which they had been convicted had been thoroughly established. Having previously been made acquainted that they were to be liberated on bail, until their case should be represented to His Majesty’s Ministers, and receive the Royal Sanction, they were required by the Court to enter into recognizances, themselves in 50l. and two sureties in 25l. each, to render themselves up to the Law, at any time hereafter, if required. This form was immediately gone through ; and two fellow creatures were thus restored to Society, from a peril scarcely to be exampled. Among other strange coincidences that accompanied the trials, (see Gazette of Jun 29), Thomas Woolley states in evidence that Alexander Suitar came to this Colony in the ship with him, and that his name was Scott. In the last week’s report it will be found from the evidence of Sarah Burnett, that Dennis Donovan had been introduced to her house in Clarence street, but the name of Alexander Scott, and she had always known him by that name. –Mrs Barrow, in her evidence on the first trial, in swearing to Suitar’s person, described his wearing a piece of lead in the left ear, which upon examination was found pierced – so also was the left ear of John White, who was last week tried and executed ; Suitar’s hat was of straw, and tarred – so also was that left near the toll gate by White ; and the handkerchief, which was torn by the witness Mayne from the face of Donovan, though of uncommon and most remarkable pattern, yet happened unfortunately for Hoollaghan to be identically of the same pattern with his own ; while other circumstances, connected with the general chain, made up one of the strongest cases of guilt that could have been conceived ; and so must have continued to be held, had not Providence interposed in behalf of the innocent, and leveled its vengeance at the proper victims.

Rowland Edwards (5)

Following from the previous article on death of my ancestor Rowland Edwards (http://thehistoryofmatt.blogspot.com/2009/11/murder-of-rowland-edwards-4.html), this immediately followed. In the last article Donovan had admitted involvement in the murders at the gallows, and while it is not clear HOW it occurred, the second man in the assault, John White, came forward to admit his part. This article describes his trial.

Sydney Gazette and NSW Advertiser

Saturday 23^rd July 1814, page 2

Sydney.

Sitting Magistrate A. Riley Esq.

Assize of Bread

COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

On Wednesday the Court assembled ; and proceeded to the trial of John White, for aiding, assisting, encouraging, comforting, and maintaining one Dennis Donovan (who had lately been executed for another murder), in feloniously killing and murdering Rowland Edwards and William Jenkins at the house attached to the Parramatta toll-gate, on the night of the 28^th of May last.

To the arraignment the prisoner declined pleading guilty of the crime of murder, but acknowledged being present when the murder was committed ; qualifying his acknowledgement with a declaration that he took no part in the killing of the two persons named in the indictment.

The JUDGE ADVOCATE observed that it was necessary the prisoner at the bar should plead generally guilty or not guilty ; that his acknowledgement of being present at the murder was insufficient, as he was challenged by the indictment with being present, feloniously, and from his malice aforethought riding and assisting in the crime.. This was a constructive plea ; and could not be recorded. The prisoner must either plead guilty or not guilty to the facts alleged, or it was an imperfect plea ; and the Court must therefore receive it as a plea of Not Guilty.

The first witness called was Edward Mayne ; who deposed to the circumstances of the murder as detailed at length in the report of the trial of Hoollaghan and Suitar, in the Gazette of 20^th ultimo. The jackets worn by the two assailants he described as being of darkish colour, and a part of the sleeve of a red jacket had been picked up near the toll house, shortly after the murder together with the hat and two handkerchiefs, as stated in the former report ; and the positive evidence he had given on that trial as to the person of Michael Hoollaghan, he now declared to be thoroughly conscientious, insomuch, that he even now could not rid himself of his first conception as to the identity of his person.

John Moffatt sworn – Witness lived at the house of Sarah Burne, at George’s River (6 or 7 miles distant from the Parramatta toll gate), & the prisoner at the bar lived there also, together with two other men, one named Edward Doyle, and the other Edward Bryen. Donnie Donovan, who has been executed, came there 7 or 8 weeks previous to the murder for which the prisoner at the bar stood arraigned, and was there frequently afterwards. About dusk on the evening of the 28^th of May, Donovan went to the hut they lived in, with a musket ; he had a red jacket, but thought he that night wore a Guernsey frock. Donovan at the prisoner at the bar went away together. Donovan’s musket was fastened with a cord near the lock. A few days previous to this the prisoner at the bar had proposed to witness to accompany him to rob the toll house kept by Edward Mayne, which witness refused to do ; but when he went away with Donovan he did not inform him where they were going. About 2 or 3 in the morning of the 29^th they returned, and went to bed in the same room with witness, and Edward Doyle. Between 8 and 9 witness went to grind some wheat, accompanied by the prisoner at the bar, who then told him that Donovan had shot two men at the toll-house, which they went to rob ; adding at the same time that he, the prisoner, had lost his hat and handkerchief in a scuffle that had taken place there. The hat found at the toll gate was shewn to him, and he swore positively it was the same worn by the prisoner when he left the farm that night with Donovan, and the red handkerchief also. Donovan left the farm on the Monday night following, and he had never seen or heard of him afterwards until he was in custody. Witness had often worn the hat himself, and he was certain it was the same.

Questioned by the Court. What motive do you suppose could induce the prisoner at the bar to make you acquainted with the circumstances of the murder, as you have stated? Ans. He did not suppose I would tell anyone else of it.

Questioned by the Court. Did you suppose that the prisoner at the bar was conscious that you knew whither, and with what design, he went with Donovan on the night of Saturday the 28^th of May? A. Yes ; they both knew that I did know of it.

A musket found in consequence of information where it had been concealed by Donovan, was here exhibited to the witness, who swore it was the same he had taken with him on the night of the murder, at which time also he wore a handkerchief resembling a yellow one found at the gate. The old red silk handkerchief also found there was likewise shown to him ; and this he positively declared to have been wirn by the prisoner at the bar when he accompanied Donovan the same night ; It belonged to the witness, who had lent it to him a few days before, and he had never returned it.

Questioned by the Prisoner. Did I not tell you that Donovan had asked me to go with him to rob the house at the toll gate ; and that I had refused? A. Yes, you did.

Question by the Court. How long was it before the night of his murder that the prisoner said he had refused to accompany Donovan thither? A. Two or three days.

Q. In his conversation with you, upon the Sunday, did he tell you they had or had not robbed the toll-gate? A. He told me they had not robbed it, because the two men had been shot.

William Farrell sworn. Witness borrowed an old red jacket for Donovan off a Mrs Barnet ; it was afterwards mended by a taylor in the house of one Coffee, and continued to be worn by Donovan during the whole remaining time the witness was with him in the woods, which was until a few weeks before the murder at the toll gate.

Question by the Court. Had Donovan, during the time you were together, ever proposed to you to rob the tollhouse? A. Yes, often.

Thomas McCarthy sworn. Witness is a taylor ; was working at the house of one Coffee, in Sydney, some time ago, and saw Donovan there, who brought him an old red jacket to mend for him. Witness put a piece of red cloth on the left elbow, and sewed up a seam in the fore part of the sleeve, both with black thread, as he had no other. He afterwards saw Donovan wear the jacket. The part of a sleeve picked up at the toll-gate immediately after the murder was here exhibited to the prisoner’s view, and he readily knew it to be the very sleeve that he mended ; the patch put on with black thread remained upon the elbow and the seam in the fore part of the arm, sewed also with black thread, as described by the witness, left no doubt if its identity.

Sarah Barnet sworn. Lives in Clarence street, Sydney, and knew Donovan, who had been brought to her house by the witness Farrell by the name of Alexander Scott ! She lent him the jacket at Farrell’s request. When she afterwards saw Donovan again she observed that the elbow had been patched and the sleeve was mended. She frequently saw him in the same jacket before the murder at the toll-gate, but never since, as he afterwards had always worn a Guernsey frock.

Edward Doyle, an evidence before the Police Magistrate (who had taken his deposition and recognizance to appear and prosecute), was next called to give his evidence, but did not appear. The JUDGE ADVOCATE gave notice that he should in consequence move the Court that his recognizance be esteemed.

H. St. J. Younge, Esq. Surgeon repeated his former testimony as to his examination of the bodies of Rowland Edwards and William Jenkins after they were shot, repeating also, that the death was in consequence of the wounds received from the gun fired at them.

D. Wentworth, Esq. Superintendant of Police, and a Magistrate for the County of Cumberland, sworn. This Gentleman deposed, that the examinations relative to this trial were taken before him ‘ that they were read over to the prisoner at the bar, signed in his presence, and acknowledged by him to be true ; that the prisoner at the bar had also made a voluntary confession before him, which was taken down in writing, afterwards read over in his presence, and signed by him ; that neither hope or menace had been held out to him ; but on the contrary, he had been apprised of the serious tendency of his confession, and uniformly declared it to be his earnest and only wish to atone for his offence by rendering himself up to justice. Here the prisoner at the bar appealed to the Superintendent of Police ; and requested him to declare whether he had not, in his confession to him, uniformly maintained his innocence so fat as respected the actual shooting, while he at the same time acknowledged his guilt as being the man who accompanied Donovan in the assault ; to which the M dagistrate answered “Yes, that was precisely the case” adding also, that the prisoner at the bar had repeatedly acknowledged to him, that he was the man with whom the witness Mayne was engaged in the struggle when the gun was discharged by Donovan, by which the two murdered men had fallen.

Here the JUDGE ADVOCATE directed the depositions taken before Mr. WENTWORTH to be read. The first was that of the witness Moffatt, corresponding with his testimony given in to Court with this addition that after Donovan’s departure from the house of Sarah Burne, a conversation had taken place relative to the act now before the Court, between Sarah Burne, Edward Doyle, the prisoner at the bar, and himself. In the course of which they each pledged themselves to the observance of secrecy, and ignorance of the event.

The deposition of Edward Doyle stated that he saw the prisoner go with Donovan from the farm of Sarah Burne, on the evening the murder was committed ; that Donovan had a musket, and he believed the prisoner at the bar had also taken a musket, which he (the deponent) had borrowed from a Mrs Marner, of George’s River. He described the dress of the prisoner, and particularly mentioned his hat, which on his examination before the Superintendent of Police, he swore to be the one now produced in Court ; that it was almost disk when they went away, and returning before day-light, lay themselves quietly down in the room he slept in ; that the prisoner at the bar, after the prisoner at the bar, after they had arose the same morning, told him the gun, meaning the gun which he, Doyle, had borrowed from Mrs Marner, was concealed in a hollow tree ; that between 10 and 11 in the forenoon, he saw Donovan put the red jacket he had usually worn into the fire, wherein it was consumed ; that the prisoner at the bar had lost his hat, and having none to wear, borrowed the deponent’s ; that after church-time he heard of the murders, and had no doubt from the burning of the jacket, and loss of the hat, that the prisoner and Donovan were the persons who had committed the crime, the more especially as they had gone away armed ; and the hat and one of the handkerchiefs produced to him at the Police Office which were now in Court, he was convinced were the same worn by the prisoner that night.

The prisoner’s declaration taken by the Magistrate in writing, was also read ; and this went to a positive confession of the truth of what the foregoing affidavits contained. Being called upon for his offence, he delivered a short narrative, in which he stated that Donovan upon the evening of the murder called him out of his hut, and desired him to go with him ; that Doyle had given to Donovan the gun he had borrowed ; that Donovan  led him to a hollow tree in which the gun was secured, and taking it out directed him to walk before him ; that he (the prisoner at the bar) objected, but Donovan insisted that he should go, for this Doyle and himself wanted some ???, and he (Donovan) moreover wanted some money, to enable him to get out of the country ; that Donovan carried the two guns till they came near the toll house where he gave him one of the guns, and desired him to keep up to him ; that when they arrived at the door, Donovan called to Mayne to get up ; that as soon as Mayne opened the door he attacked him (the prisoner) ; a scuffle ensued, Mayne called for assistance ; the two men (Edwards and Jenkins) came towards the door, and were immediately fired at by Donovan and both fell. He had no witnesses to call, except to character, which might have availed him in cases of inferior atrocity. The Court retired, and after an absence of 2 hours, returned a verdict – Guilty.

The JUDGE ADVOCATE, before he passed the Sentence of the La, addressed the prisoner with a view to impress on his mind the justice of this sentence, the utter preclusion of the hope of mercy in this world, which was consequent on the dreadful nature of his offence ; and the necessity he would be under, as he hoped forgiveness from his offended CREATOR, to devote the short remainder of his time in earnest supplication to Him alone who could dispense mercy to a contrite sinner. The offence of which he had been convicted was of a most direful, and particularly awful description, as well with respect to the fact itself, as to other circumstances that had been subsequently connected with it. Two fellow creatures had been deprived of existence in the dead hour of the night, when they least could have expected to barbarous an attack ; and two others had been convicted by the fact, upon testimony which to the Court appeared to be incontestable, while from the present day’s trial their innocence had as incontestably been made apparent. Such was the fallibility of human judgment ! In this extraordinary case, however, the interposition of Divine Providence had manifested itself in a marvelous and most surprising manner ; and its finger may be said to have pointed directly towards those on whose heads its awful vengeance should in justice fall. From the prisoner’s own declaration, supported by the clear and uncontradicted testimony of other persons, he evidently appeared to have been the man who was present, and acting in concert with the atrocious offender, Donovan, when Edwards and Jenkins were shot by him.

Out of the prisoner’s own declaration, in that very effect, a question of aw had arison from the matter of fact ; for the prisoner had stated that he did not accompany Donovan to commit a murder, but only to commit a robbery, at the turn-pike house. It had been proved that Donovan was armed with a gun, when the prisoner at the bar left the farm with him ; at Doyle, in his deposition, has said he had no doubt that the prisoner himself was also armed with the very gun which he (Doyle) had borrowed from Mrs Marner. This the prisoner at once concludes by his open avowal that he really was armed with a gun as well as Donovan, and which exactly corresponds with the testimony given by Edward Mayne on that particular. They had gone armed, and with their faces covered, with intent to commit a felony, and from that intent another had arison of a still more direful nature. They were acting together ; Mayne was in close contest with the prisoner, who desired that Donovan would knock him down, and he in consequence received several blows from the butt of Donovan’s musket, and thus they both escaped. It was a legal maxim that if several combine to commit a felont, and all are present, who it is committed even by only one of the number, yet by the construction of the Law they are all considered as equally guilty. The prisoner at the bar was therefore guilty in point of law, although in point of fact he might not be the man who discharged the musket. The learned Gentlemen here expatiated on the testimony given by Edward Mayne at the former trial to the identity of Hoollaghan ; and remarked thereupon, that he had no doubt but the witness from some strong conception which had pressed upon his mind, did actually believe that Hoollaghan was one of the people, though it was now evident that his judgement had been too precipitate, and his ??? not ??? from deliberation legitimate causes, but from a strong apprehension excited, doubtless, from previous information he had received of their having an aversion to him. The JUDGE ADVOCATE then expatiated upon that ??? of the prisoner’s confession which went to point to imply his accompanying Donovan by compulsion and against his own will. But this was altogether opposite to the evidence of Moffatt and the deposition of Doyle, ??? stating that the prisoner had himself ??? agreed then to accompany him, to commit that very robbery which he had afterwards attempted with Donovan. Then surely, if he had paid the highest repugnance to it, he might very easily have got away from Donovan ; whose upon ??? in combination with other persons at the farm of Burne encouraged there, and been intimate with for a length of time the murder. The prisoner had not, to any ??? whatever since deported himself as a man who feels a sense of horror at what Donovan ??? company, but on the contrary had entered into a ??? to keep it secret. He knew that ??? persons had been convicted of the very offence in which he was guilty ; he had been ??? these.... they would have suffered death for his crime, yet still he kept his secret, and would in their death have added murder to murder, had not the Almight God have ???, by a marvelous disclosure of circumstances which for a long time might have kept the minds of men in painful doubt and uncertainty, ultimately fixed the horrid burden where it ought to fall. Lastl, exhorting him to use his best endeavours to obtain remission of his crimes in a future state the JUDGE ADVOCATE pronounced the sentence of the Law ; which ?? the unhappy man to suffer death on Friday, and his body afterwards to be delivered up for dissection – which sentence has been carried into execution accordingly.

The murder of Rowland Edwards (4)

The next development in the trial of the murderers of Rowland Edwards was a more dramatic one. In the previous three articles, the parallel trial of the bushranger and murderer Dennis Donovan - we will deal wth his crimes at a later point. However, at his hanging two weeks after the sentencing of Hoolaghan and Suitar, Dennis Donovan confessing himself as accessory to murder, but would not say who had committed the murder. Furthermore, a man named John White had since come forward and confessed also! The two men who plead their innocence in court indeed appeared to be innocent:



Sydney Gazette and NSW Advertiser
Saturday 16th July 1814, page 2

"On Tuesday Dennis Donovan and John Turner were executed pursuant to their several sentences and their bodies afterwards given for dissection. The latter behaved in a manner becoming his unhappy condition ; but the other, with a degree of obduracy scarcely if ever before witnessed, was as uncandid in his dying declarations as he had been atrocious in his living acts. It has, however, happened well for society, that his declarations while under sentence, though pregnant with evasion, now and then gave rise to expressions implicating himself in at least a knowledge of those who were the murderers of Jenkins and Edwards, at the Toll-gate of Parramatta, for which two unhappy men were condemned to die, and hourly expected to suffer when he went to the place of execution. At this last gaol of his worldly career, he confessed his guilt as accessory to the murder at Hawkesbury, for which he suffered. There had always existed a strong wish to be satisfied whether he had been connected in to the Toll-bar murder or not. Discoveries had been made subsequent to the condemnation of Hoollaghan and Suitar for that horrible crime, which could not possibly fail of producing a belief that Donovan was himself a principal in this atrocious act ; and a stay of execution had taken place, for the purpose of developing, if possible, a mystery upon which the lives of the two fellow creatures depended, whose innocence was not altogether impossible, however strongly connected, and to all moral appearances indissoluble the chain of evidence that had produced their conviction.


Donovan at the place of execution denied that he was the perpetrator of this murder, but said he knew who the persons were by whom it had been committed ; and died as he had lived, remorseless and unpenitent. The prisoners Hoollaghan and Suitar have in the mean time, from an almost wonderful interposition of extraordinary, yet concurring circumstances, highly favourable to the opinion of their possible innocence, have been reprieved from death, until the existing doubt should be removed, which from the great, indefatigable, and incessant exertions of our worthy POLICE MAGISTRATE, leaves the question considerably in favour of the presumed innocence of the convicted parties.


Since Donovan’s execution, new discoveries have taken place, and John White, a servant of Mrs Burne, at George’s River, stands now fully committed for the murder, on his own confession, strengthened by the testimony of others ; and his trial is fixed for Wednesday next."

The murder of Rowland Edwards (2)

Following from the previous entry on Rowland Edwards showng the report in the Sydney Gazette on June 4 reporting his murder (http://thehistoryofmatt.blogspot.com/2009/06/murder-of-rowland-edwards.html), the next brief article appeared in the Gazette on Saturday 25 June 1814. It reported that the accused Michael Hoollaghan (Woollaghan) and Alex Suitar had stood trial that day, and promised a full report in the next issue.

Beneath it was a brief statement that the recently captured bushranger Dennis Donovan had also been committed to trial for the murder of three people at the Hawkesbury River. Readers could not have guessed how inter-related to two brief stories would become as the weeks unfolded.


Transcript

The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser
Saturday 25 June 1814

This day the trial of Michael Hoollaghan, otherwise Woollaghan, and Alex. Suitar, for the murder of Rowland Edwards (when William Jenkins was also murdered) commenced at ten o'clock. The particulars of which will be detailed in a Gazette to be published on Wednesday.
.....
Dennis Donovan was this day fully committed to take his trial for the murder of two men and a woman on the Hawkesbury River, committed some time since, and it is expected he will be tried Monday.

The murder of Rowland Edwards

In 1814, Rowland Edwards was murdered. While Rowland was unlucky, we are lucky that his murder captured the attention of the Sydney Gazette, and an entire edition of the Gazette was dedicated to the trial of his accused murderers. Coverage was further extended when it was discovered that the two men sentenced to hang for the murder were in fact innocent, all thanks to a gallows confession of one of the two real assailants.

The first article appeared in the Gazette on Saturday 4th June 1814 under the header 'SHOCKING MURDER'. The article is detailed and covers the events thoroughly:



Transcript:
Sydney Gazette and NSW Advertiser
Saturday 4th June 1814
"SHOCKING MURDER. Early on Sunday morning last an account was received in Town of the murder of Mr. William Jenkins, a dealer of Sydney, and Mr. Rowland Jenkins Edwards, a settler of Hawkesbury, who were both shot at the Parramatta Toll-gate (kept by Eward Edward Mayne), between ten and eleven the preceding night; of which melancholy fact the following are particulars:- Mr Jenkins, coming towards Sydney, and Mr. Edwards, proceeding for Hawkesbury, met at the Toll house, and not inclining to pursue their different journeys journies further, received the proffer of such accommodation as the place afforded. At an early hour they went to bed, as likewise did their host:; who being some time afterwards disturbed by a voice requiring that the toll-gate should be opened, arose and went out to obey the summons; but on opening the door saw two men armed with muskets, ready to burst into the house, one of them much taller than the other, and both wearing handkerchiefs over their faces. The shortest man's gun he immediately seized hold of, and a scuffle ensued; during which he endeavoured and partly and succeeded in unmasking both the villains, exclaiming at the same time "Oh, save me! save me!" The lamentable appeal aroused his sleeping guests; and they, with a moment's pause, sprang to his relief; but, fata fatal to both the effort proved! for they had scarcely crossed the threshold, when the taller ruffian, levelling his musket at the foremost, who happened to be Edwards, fired, & both fell on the explosion. - Jenkins was killed on the spot, and the unhappy partner in his destiny survived four painful hours - then followed him to the shades of death! So near was the assassin when he fired, that the whole contents are supposed to have entered his right side, in which 15 shot and slugs were found; and two others, which proved the instantaneous death of Jenkins, one entering the lungs, and the other the groin, are supposd supposed to have passed through the body of the former. - Mayne, the gate-keeper, still struggled with the shorter assailant, who finding himself likely to be overpowered, repeatedly demanded of the other to knock him down, which he effected by a blow with the butt of his musket on the head, and carious various parts of the body; when, either from a supposition he was dead, or possibly becoming too anxious for their own security to hazard delay, they made off precipitately. As soon as Mayne had sufficiently recovered from his blows, he made the best of his way into Parramatta where he acquainted the Rev. Mr. Marsden, resident Magistrate, with the dreadful occurence occurrence, naming at the same time his suspicion that the assassins were two labourers employed in the construction of the Liverpool road, who inhabited huts about two and a quarter miles from Parramatta, their names Michael Woollaghan, and Alexander Suitar. A party of the military detachment with several constables, went to the place, and found four men in their beds or hammocks, in two huts nearly contiguous, Wollaghan Woollaghan and Suitar in one hut, and two others, whose names are Bond and Day, in the other. They were all apprehended, and taken into Parramatta, where they appeared before the Coroner's Inquest, which sat on Sunday and Monday; in the course of which days, in addition to the circumstances above detailed, it appeared that the men who had attacked the gate house left behind them two handkerchiefs, (supposed to be those theu had worn over their faces), and a hat; which if clearly recognized by any disinterested person may afford considerable strength to any evidence to the fact that may have already been obtained. - A Verdict of Wilful Murder was returned by the Jury against Wollaghan and Suitar, who were accordingly fully committed by the Coroner to for trial; and Bond and Day were desired to be held in custody until legal advice should be obtained relative to them. The body of Mr. Edwards was buried at Parramatta on Monday, and the remains of W. Jenkins were brought to Sydney by his relations, and interred on Tuesday. - We are further concerned to state, that they both leave families to deplore their dismal
end."

Note that the National Library copy of the paper has a handwritten note in the margin stating the other issues covering the trial: "Trials June 4, June 29, July 23".

I have not yet obtained Rowland's burial transcript so am not sure where precisely in Parramatta he was buried.

Continuing from my previous post on Rowland Edwards, this entry is intended to summarise what I know of Rowland EDWARDS, Jane FLETCHER and their children from their marriage in 1804 till Rowland's death in 1814.

The NSW BDM indexes reveal three children baptised between 1804 and 1814:

1.
Ann EDWARDS (V18083400 1A/1808) parents Rowland and Jane
2.
Elizabeth EDWARDS (V18103402 1A/1810) parents Rowland and Jane
3.
John R (V18133398 1A/1813) parents Rowland and Jane
John Rowland (V1813187 156/1813) parents Rowland and Jane

As with many early indexed records, multiple entries appear for the young John Rowland. Prior to compulsory civil registation in NSW in 1855, indexes today are compiled from church records. If a child was not baptised (or did not survive long enough to be), they escape NSW BDM indexing.

Furthermore, the NSW Baptism Certificate for Elizabeth shows that despite being born in 1810, she was not baptised till after her father Rowland was murdered in June 1814:



Transcript:
--------------------
NSW Baptisms
Number 3402 Vol: 1a

CHILD
Christian name: Elizabeth
When born: 18 October, 1810
Date of ceremony: 4 September, 1814
Where ceremony performed: not stated
Where registered: Richmond, A.

PARENTS
Father: Rowland EDWARDS
Mother: Jane EDWARDS
Abode: Not stated
Quality or profession: Not stated
Sponsors: Not stated

By whom the ceremony was performed: Not stated, Church of England
--------------------

Along with these three entries, the 1828 census also four Edwards children ‘living with Jane Fletcher’ at Richmond. Jane herself is entered under her maiden name rather than her married name(s), probably used to keep record of women transported to the colony.



In each case, the children are entered as born in the colony (‘BC’), Protestant (‘Pro’), and residing in Ricmond:

Mary, age 23 (so born abt 1805)
Elizabeth, age 19 (so born abt 1809)
John, age 16 (so born abt 1812)
Catherine, age 18 months (so born abt 1827)

Their sister Ann appears elsewhere in the 1828 census living at Parramatta, as she had married Edward EWER in 1825. While Elizabeth and John are found in the NSW BDM baptism entries (above), no entry for Mary appears, and the census is the main evidence we have for her birth (along with advertisements in the Sydney Gazette a few years prior to 1828).

Catherine, age 18 months who appears on the census above does not correspond with Jane, but is in fact the daughter of Elizabeth EDWARDS (and is therefore Jane’s granddaughter). Her baptism appears in the NSW BDM indexes:
Catherine EDWARDS (V18279178 1C/1827) – mother Elizabeth, father not named
Catherine EDWARDS (V1827586 13/1827) – mother Elizabeth, father not named

So John EDWARDS and Jane FLETCHER had four known children following their marriage in 1804:

Mary, born abt 1805
Ann, born 1808
Elizabeth, born 1810
John Rowland, born 1813

It is possible other children were born and died in the period they were married (1804-1814), however given that their children were baptized after Rowland’s death, any who were born and died prior to that period have not been captured in parish records. As early church burial records often don’t record the names of parents it would be difficult to identify other probably children without going through parish books for the specific area.

Apart from parish records, other possible sources of information about the family from 1804-1814 include NSW State Archives records such as Colonial Secretary correspondence, and the newspaper of the time, the Sydney Gazette. Together these items help to piece together the lives of Rowland, Jane and their children.

1808. An advert in the Sydney Gazette for Sunday 24 July 1808 (page 2) states that “the following letters being committed to the charge of G. Howe, the persons to whom they are directed are requested to apply for the same”. Rowland Edwards is listed there. G. Howe was the proprietor of the Sydney Gazette.

1809. The index of ‘Land Grants, 1788-1809; A record of registered grants and leases in NSW; VDL and NI’ book 4D lists all land Grants and Leases Oct-Dec. No. 1766 is for “Edwards, Rowland. Dec. 14 80 acres at Richmond Hill.” It is not clear whether this is an extension of a land grant, or represents a new grant.

The Sydney Gazette for Sunday 3 September 1809 lists auctions ‘BY VIRTUE of EXECUTION’.



“SAME DAY, On the Premises of ROWLAND EDWARDS, on the High Lands at Richmond Hill, at Three o’Clock in the afternoon, The PROVOST MARSHALL will proceed to SELL by PUBLIC AUCTION, one Horse, one Cart, and a number of Pigs, the Property of the said Rowland Edwards (unless the Execution thereupon be previously superseded).”

This auction is the result of an inability to settle debts (the first of two times this occurred to Rowland in this period). We learn from this that Rowland’s farm was ‘on the High Lands at Richmond Hill’, and also that they owned (at least prior to the auction) a horse and cart. While the farm was a crop farm (wheat farming is referred to below), the pigs were probably kept for food. Richmond Hill is now known as Richmond.

There are a number of reasons why properties in the district could be suffering financially – one reason in the district was flooding. There was extensive flooding in 1806 and again in 1809, as this transcript from the Sydney Gazette on Sunday August 6, 1809 reported the massive flooding: ‘It is considered that the perpendicular rise of the river could not be much less than 86 feet from ground level, and to have exceeded that of March, 1806, by 6 or 8 feet of perpendicular height; and unfortunately happens at a time of year which totally destroys the prospects of the settler, and the dependence of the Colony upon this Settlement for the next year, as the sown wheat will in all probability perish in the ground in most of the lower situations……. The accounts from Richmond Hill are of the same distressing tendency….’

In the face of such hardships and loss of crops it is easy to understand difficulty for a farmer in settling accounts.

1810.
The only item of potential interest in the Colonial Secretary’s correspondence is an 1810 Memorial (or letter) (Fiche 3003; 4/1821 No.98), though I’ve not yet obtained a copy of this correspondence.

Also in 1810, the front page of the Sydney Gazette for 8th Dec contains an ‘address from the settlers of Hawkesbury’ to the newly arrived Governor, followed by a long list of signatories including Rowland Edwards. The address reads:

“The following address from the settlers of Hawkesbury was presented on the 1st instant to His Excellency the Governor at Windsor (formerly Green Hills) by Thomas Arndell, Esq.

"We the undersigned Settlers, Residents of the Hawkesbury and its vicinity, beg
leave respectfully to congratulate YOUR EXCELLENCY on your arrival at this
Settlement, and earnestly hope your Excellency will be pleased with the
Agricultural improvements and industry that pervade here; and trust that the
continuance of our exertions will ever merit your Excellency's approbation.

We also beg leave to return our unfeigned thanks for Your Excellency's recent
Appointment of William Cox Esq. as a Magistrate at this place; - a Gentleman who
for many years has resided amongst us, possessing our esteem and confidence,
who, from his local knowledge of the Settlement, combined with his many other
good qualities, will, we are convinced, promote your Excellency's benign
intention of distributing Justice and Happiness to ALL.”

Among the list of signatories is Rowland Edwards, as well as Henry Baldwin who witnessed his marriage. This memorandum was probably related to the Governor’s tour of the district which resulted in the establishment of five towns in the Hawkesbury District; Windsor, Richmond, Castlereagh, Wilberforce and Pitt Town. Macquarie located the town of Richmond Hill (now called Richmond) on a ridge to ensure it was relatively safe from flooding.

A list of Land Grants issued or renewed by Governor Macquarie in 1810 for Richmond Hill also lists Rowland: “Edwards, Rowland 80 acres”.

1811.
Rowland received his Certificate of Emancipation (1/2/1811), again not yet sourced from NSW State Archives.

1812.
The Sydney Gazette for Sunday 28 November 1812 lists adverts for ‘SALES BY AUCTION (By Virtue of Execution)’.



‘On FRIDAY next, the 4th December, At Windsor, on the Premises of Rowland Edwards, at Twelve at Noon, THE PROVOST MARSHALL will Cause to be Set up for Sale by Public Auction, Seven Acres of Growing Wheat, the Property of the said Rowland Edwards (unless the Execution thereon be previously superseded.’

As with 1809, several properties are listed along with Rowland’s suggesting that this was a difficult period for farming in the district, and as a result they suffered at the hands of debtors. That Rowland faced difficulties with debts twice in three years indicates how difficult their life was, yet Rowland was obviously a capable farmer, as the ‘growing wheat’.



This modern map (cut from google maps) highlights the local area. It shows Richmond and Windsor, and surrounding areas. The exact location of Rowland's farm has not been determined, however in newspaper articles in 1814 (the next post) mentioned his farm as being at 'Cornwallis' which can be seen closer to the river.

These fragments from newspapers and records are all we have uncovered to help us understand the life of Rowland Edwards, his wife Jane nee Fletcher and their children, maintaining a farm ‘on the high lands at Richmond Hill’ from their marriage in 1804 till 1814, when their lives were interrupted by Rowland’s murder.

Marriage of Rowland EDWARDS to Jane FLETCHER

Rowland EDWARDS (abt1763 - 1814) arrived on the 'Admiral Barrington' as part of the Third Fleet in 1791. Indents indicate he was sentenced in Salop (Shropshire) to 7 years transportation. I've not entered my data/certificates etc. on Rowland EDWARDS, and little on Jane FLETCHER his wife (1786-1832). I have previously posted on the legal error that led to Jane not being hung for murdering her 'bastard child', but transported to Australia instead: http://thehistoryofmatt.blogspot.com/2009/01/jane-fletcher-sentencing-in-1803.html

I'll now begin to post what I have (in chronological order).

Rowland EDWARDS. While I do not have any copies of primary sources yet, a fellow Rowland Edwards descendent Ron Harper informed me that "Rowland Edwards, age 26, was charged at Shrewsbury, Salop County, UK on 8 August 1789, with feloniously stealing a black gelding, the property of Morris Evans of Berthyneus in the Parish of Carno in the county of Montgomery between the 25th and 27th of May 1789. Upon the oath of Richard Owen of Carno, Wales he was convicted and sentenced to seven years transportation beyond the seas. He was transported on the "Admiral Barrington" from Portsmouth, on 27 March 1791 as part of the Third Fleet to New Holland, arriving in Port Jackson on 16 October 1791. The "Admiral Barrington", under Captain Robert Abbon Marsh, with Peter Gossam as ship's surgeon, was a 1781 French-built ship of 527 tons. It carried 300 male prisoners, 36 of whom died during the voyage."

Another descendent Lynne Dickson has informed me of a newspaper article in the Shrewsbury Chronicle dated Oct 6th 1789 listing Prisoners in Goal, sentenced to be transported . Among them is Rowland Edwards aged 26, to be transported beyond the seas for 7 years.

These two sets of information would mean that Rowland was born about 1763.

I know little else of Rowland EDWARDS prior to 1804, though he would have served his sentence out by 1897. The only reference I've found is in the NSW Colonial Secretary's Index which refers to a document dated 10 April 1802 listing Rowland Edwards, 'of the Hawkesbury District. Particulars of arms in possession of (Reel 6041; 4/1719 p.93)'. This indicates that Rowland had already settled in the Hawkesbury district to the north and north-west of Sydney.

In 1804, Jane Fletcher arrived in NSW as a convict (see a later post) and later that year she married Rowland Edwards at St John's, Parramatta on 3 August 1804.


Transcript:

NEW SOUTH WALES MARRIAGES
Number : 271 Vol: 147A
St John's, Church of England
Rowland Edwards of the Parish of St John
Jane Fletcher of the Parish of St John
were married in this Church by Banns
this third day of August, in this year one thousand eight hundred and four
by me Saml. Marsden

This marriage was solemnized between us:
Mr R. Edwards
Jane Fletcher X her mark

In the presence of:
Martha Pearl x her mark
Henry Baldwin

It is important to note that the celebrant, Samuel Marsden, was by Rowland Edward's side when he died 10 years later, after being fatally shot at the Parramatta Toll House. St John's church at Parramatta was the only church in the colony in 1804, and had only been completed the previous year (it was demolished in 1851 and replaced by the current St John's on the same site).


A sketch by Friedrich Schroeder (1768-1839) in the National Library of Australia 'Nouvelle-Hollande, Port Jackson, vue de l'eglise de Parramatta en 1819' - a view of the church at Parramatta in 1819.

Of the witnesses, Martha PEARL (also written as PURL) arrived with Jane FLETCHER on the Experiment in 1804. She also married a farmer from the Richmond district, Hugh DEVLIN (or DEVLYN), in 1805 at Parramatta (it would be interesting to know if Jane reciprocated as a witness). Hugh arrived on the Friendship in 1800. They appear not to have had children, and she received a Certificate of Pardon in 1808 and a Certificate of Emancipation in 1810. Numberous Sydney Gazette articles refer to their property at 'Richmond Hill'. The NSW Colonial Secretary Index shows that Martha was convicted for clandestine distilling in 1812, and a fine levied on her paid into Police Fund. Six months later she appeared on a list of prisoners sent to Newcastle suggesting she was punished for distilling or another crime - the indexes also show that her sentence was remitted in 1814. Martha and her husband do not appear to have had children. Sydney Gazette articles show they continued farming in the district, and in the 1828 census the couple appear (as DEBLIN) he 60, she 48, as farmers in Richmond. Martha died in 1859 aged 75, registered in Penrith (her husband Hugh died the same year aged 95).

The other witness, Henry BALDWIN, was also a convict, who arrived with Rowland Edwards on the 'Admiral Barrington" in 1791 and was also a farmer in the Richmond district. Lynne Dickson has provided me with some extra information on Henry Baldwin. Henry was born at Chipping Barnet, Hertfordshire in 1769. In Australia he married Elizabeth RAYNER though apparently no record remains of the marriage, and they had at least twelve children together in the Richmond/Wilberforce area. He died at Freeman's Reach NSW in 1849.

Shortly after Jane FLETCHER arrived in NSW on the 'Experiment' in June 1804, The Sydney Gazette for Sunday 1 July 1804 carried two articles on page 2 side-by-side. On the right, the Gazette reports 'of the female prisoners brought by the Experiment 21 convalescents were sent to the General Hospital, and the majority of the others went up to Parramatta. Nine settlers with their families came by the above ship; the wife and one child of ---- McGrath, and the wife of ---- Wilson died on the passage, as did also the child of another'.

The adjacent article leads 'NATIVES' and contains a letter from a Richmond Hill farmer who had allowed a group of indigenous people to remain camping on his farm. However, news of violence nearby resulted in a party of the natives heading into the bush. The writer heard several shots the following day, and two well-known indigenous people were killed 'one of whom, better known by the name of Major White than any other, had ever been remarkable in fomenting mischiefs'. The ever-present Samuel Marsden met with tribal leaders the next day and urged them to end the 'mischiefs' in the area, and remarkably in light of events the letter to the paper concludes '...and I have no doubt that the mild and placid measures which have been pursued by Government on this, as on every other such irksome occasion, will have the desired effect of recalling these unfortunate creatures to a state of amity, and restor safety and tranquility to the remote settler'.

This was the world of Richmond Hill in 1804 that Rowland lived and farmed in, and the one that Jane Fletcher was about to enter.

Jane Fletcher - sentencing in 1803

My ancestor Jane FLETCHER had quite an eventful life. She was born in Orleton, Hereford, England to Richard Fletcher and Tabita nee LLOYD, baptised on 11 Jun 1786 (a Sunday). In March 1803 Jane appeared at the Hereford Assizes, as reported in the Hereford Journal of 23 Mar 1803 "...Jane Fletcher, aged 15, for the murder of her newborn bastard child, {was} capitally convicted, and received sentence of death.... the latter was to have been executed on Monday last, but is respited to the second of May next". The Hereford Journal also reported on 4 May 1803: "On Saturday night a respite arrived at our County Gaol for Jane Fletcher, convicted at the last assizes of the murder of her bastard child, till the 20th of June next."

While no further article has been identified, the execution never took place, as she sailed on the 'Experiment' from Cowes (Isle of Wight) on 2 Jan 1804 with 2 male and 134 female convicts. The ship arrived at Sydney on 12 Jun 1804. While her life in New South Wales will be the subject of another entry, she married fellow convict Rowland EDWARDS at St Johns, Parramatta (aged about 17) and had several children with him before he was murdered 10 years later at the Parramatta Toll House. Jane re-married to John ALLAN/ALLEN in 1815, and had several children with him before he died in 1826. Jane passed away in 1832, presumably in the Richmond area of NSW where her farm with Rowland Edwards was located and where she was stated as living in the 1828 NSW census.

I have now found out how Jane Fletcher’s death sentence was commuted to transportation.

The explanation is contained in the The Journal of Jurisprudence, 1886, Vol XXX, Edinburgh (available on-line through Google Books) in an article entitled ‘Technical Objections and Escapes from Justice – Informal Sentencing’, p68-77. The transcript is below. Amazingly, she was sentenced to death, but the judge omitted, in sentencing her to death, to articulate the sentence in full (specifically, that after hanging her body be anatomized as she was a murderer). As she was not sentenced correctly, and the judge did not rectify his error, her sentence was commuted to transportation. As explained:

“In cases of murder our capital sentence has one peculiar element, sanctioned by inveterate practice, namely, that the condemned criminal be fed on bread and water after conviction and till execution. It is nothing to the purpose that this dietary is not carried out in practice any more than actual hard labour was always insisted in where a hard labour sentence was pronounced: the form must be observed, however the fact may be. Suppose this qualification of bread and water diet was omitted from the capital sentence, as the qualification of hard labour was omitted from the case of Fergusson, would not the condemned criminal, assuming the hard labour case to have been correctly decided, be entitled to have his sentence set aside as Ferguson had his?

Incredible as it may appear, there is an English case in point, where the prisoner escaped hanging because of an omission in a subordinate part of the sentence. Jane Fletcher (Russell & Ryan's Crown Cases Preserved, and Burke's Romance of the Forum) was convicted of the murder of her child before Sir Alan Chambre at the Hereford Spring Assizes in 1803.

By the statute 25 Geo. II. cap. 37, then in force, it was directed that the body of any one convicted of murder should be dissected and anatomized, and that the sentence should express the marks of infamy in order to impress just horror in the mind of the offender, and to the minds of those present in Court when the sentence was pronounced. In the sentence of death passed upon Fletcher, the formal part thereof, relating to the dissection and anatomization of her body, was by mistake omitted. The omission was discovered on the evening of the same day when the assize calendar was taken to the lodgings of the judge to be signed. Execution was respited in order to afford time to consider the point; and a meeting was held at the chambers of Lord Ellenborough on 27th April 1803, being the first day of Easter term. As there was considerable difference of opinion, there was an adjournment till 10th June, being the first day of Trinity term, when the case was debated at great length. The twelve judges were equally divided in opinion, six of them holding that the omission in the sentence did not prevent the attainder taking place, and that it would not be an error if the judgment were formally drawn up, omitting that part of the sentence; while the other six were of opinion that the marks of infamy directed by the statute were a material part of the sentence, and that therefore a judgment omitting that part would be erroneous. All the judges, however, agreed that the omission might have been remedied, by the judge returning to Court after the adjournment and having the prisoner brought up again and passing the proper judgment, as the sentence might be corrected or altered at any time during the session. The result was that a pardon was granted on condition of transportation.”

----------

A second reference on the same case

'Crown Cases Reserved for Consideration and Decided by the Twelve Judges of England, from the year 1799 to 1824', by William Oldnall Russell and Edward Ryan, 1839.

"Rex v. Jane Fletcher.

Murder. Qu. Whether the award of dissection and anatomising in pursuance of 25 G.2 c.37. is an essential part of the sentence to be pronounced by the judge upon a convicted murderer.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice Chambre, at the spring assizes at Hereford, in the year 1803, upon an indictment for the murder of her bastard child. Sentence of death was immediately passed upon her, but, in pronouncing the sentence, that part of it which relates to the dissection and anatomisation of the body happened to be omitted. The other convicts being in court to receive their sentences, the attention of the learned judge was drawn off to them, and when that business, being the last remaining to be done in court, was over, the court was adjourned to the lodgings, and the learned judge did not, till some time after he had arrived at the lodgings, recollect the omission. The calendar was taken to the learned judge the same evening, in which calendar the dissection and anatomising of the body were stated as part of the sentence, and he signed the calendar at the lodgings; but being doubtful how far that could remedy the defect of the sentence pronounced in open court, and what would be the legal consequence of not having conformed literally to the directions of the statute 25 G. 2. c. 37., he respited the execution until the 2nd day of May, and directed the particular restraints imposed by the act on such convicts, to be omitted until Friday the 29th of April, in order to have the opportunity in the mean time of consulting the *judges, upon the proper steps to be taken under these circumstances.

The statute 25 G. 2. c. 37., reciting that the horrid crime of murder had been of late more frequently perpetrated than formerly, was passed in order to add some further terror and peculiar marks of infamy to the punishment of death. It therefore provides for the more speedy execution of such offenders, and for the disposal of their bodies by delivery to surgeons to be dissected and anatomised. And the third section enacts, "that sentence shall be pronounced in open court, immediately after the conviction of such murderer, and before the court shall proceed to any other business, unless the court shall see reasonable cause for postponing the same; in which sentence shall be expressed not only the usual judgment of death, but also the time appointed hereby for the execution thereof, and the marks of infamy hereby directed for such offenders, in order to impress a just horror on the mind of the offender, and on the minds of such as shall be present, of the heinous crime of murder."

This case was taken into consideration by all the judges, (assembled at Lord Ellenborough's chambers) on the 27th of April, 1803, being the first day of Easter term, when there appeared to be a considerable difference of opinion, and it was adjourned to the first day of Trinity term. On Friday the 10th of June, 1803, being the first day of Trinity term, at a meeting of all the judges at Lord Ellenborough's chambers in Serjeant's Inn, this case was again debated, when the judges were equally divided in opinion: Lord Ellenborough, Lord Alvanley, Macdonald C. B., Heath J., Rooke J., and Chambre J., being of opinion, that the omission of dissection and anatomising in the sentence pronounced did not prevent the attainder taking place; and that it would not be error if the judgment were formally drawn up omitting that part of the sentence; and Hotham B., Grose J., Thompson B., Lawrence J., Le Blanc J., and Graham B., being of a contrary opinion, namely, that the marks of infamy directed by the statute were a material part of the sentence, and that a judgment omitting such part would be erroneous.

Those judges who thought that the omission was not an essential part of the judgement argued from the several clauses of the statute 25 G.2 , that the statue was only directory; that the *common law judgment of hanging worked the attainder; and that as, before the statute, the body of the criminal was at the king's disposal, the statute only directed how it should be disposed of in all cases of murder, and that to inspire greater horror, the mode of disposing of the body after death should be stated by the judge at the time he passed sentence.

The judges who thought otherwise relied on the terms of the third section of the statute, making it necessary to express the marks of infamy in the sentence; and conceived that such terms were added as a further punishment for the offence: and they relied much upon the opinion of the majority of the judges stated in Foster's Crown Law at the end of the case of Swan v. Jefferys, (a) and upon the form in which judgments in cases of murder have ever since the statute been drawn up, making the dissection and anatomising a part of the judgment.

All the judges agreed that the omission in the passing of the sentence might have been remedied by the judge going again into court, after adjournment, from the lodgings, and ordering the prisoner to be again brought up, and then passing the proper judgment; as the sentence may be corrected or altered at any time during the assizes. Upon this difference of opinion it was resolved, that the prisoner should be reprieved generally, and that application should be made to the Crown for a pardon on condition of transportation, (c) (It is not an essential part of the sentence that the day of execution should be awarded therein, the statute in that respect being directory only.)

It seems remarkable to me that existence can hang on so tenuous a thread as an error in pronouncing sentence by a judge. Perhaps the hubbub as he announced her death sentence distracted him.

Ewer's in colonial NSW

I have been doing some hunting around faor evidence of the EARLY Ewer’s in Sydney/NSW, as my ancestor Edward Ewer arrived in NSW in 1822 as a convict after being convicted in the Berkshire Assizes (I'm yet to find a way to get transcripts of his hearing).

I know little of his family in England, so am looking at other Ewer's in early Australia to see if there are any family connections. The most likely is James Garnet Ewer, who married in Kelso (a suburb of Bathurst NSW) when Edward and his wife Ann EDWARDS were living in Bathurst. I am intrigued that for so many of these Ewer's, I've not found death entries yet.

I looked at the 1828 census, state archives entries, and NSW BDM entries. I also checked Vic, Tas and SA arrival and census entries lest there be some movement – though I’m yet to check Vic and Qld BDM. If I get a chance to look at these, I’m sure the list will expand somewhat.

I’ll leave it at this for now, and write on Edward’s past next.


They are:

Thomas EWER, Private, NSW Corps, SAG pay list 1798, recorded receiving land in 1800.
Australia’s free coat settlers ( http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~garter1/) notes that he was in the 102nd Regiment (Rum Corps), and returned to England. The 102nd was raised in 1789 for service in England, and returned in 1810. The Society of Australian genealogists has extensive information that would reveal his history.

William EWER, Private, 73rd Regiment of Foot, 1st Battalion. Recorded in 1812 Pay List. 73rd sent under Leiut. Gen. Lachlan Macquarie to relieve the NSW Corps, arriving in 1810, and departing in 1814. He appears on the 1828 census as a member of the No. 6 Iron Gang – which one would expect of a convict?. No indication that he remained in Australia. Again, SAG searching would reveal more.

Joseph EWER, Private, 73rd Regiment of Foot, 1st Battalion. Recorded in 1812 Pay List. 73rd sent under Leiut. Gen. Lachlan Macquarie to relieve the NSW Corps, arriving in 1810, and departing in 1814. No indication that he remained in Australia. Again, SAG records would reveal more.

Nathaniel EWER, Convicted at the Old Bailey for grand larceny 21st June 1815 (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1810s/t18150621-40.html). Arrived as a convict on ‘Fanny’ 1816 (Convicted London). In court charge with escaping on ‘Hamet’ in 1818. In 1820, was on the ‘General Gates’ with four other convicts including Francis EWER and made their way to New Zealand before return – read details in NZ Historical Records Vol 1 (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-McN01Hist.html). Has certificate of freedom by 1825. This shows Nathaniel and Francis knew one another.

An infant, Thomas R, died in 1817.

Francis EWER, Convicted at the Old Bailey (First Middlesex Jury) for burglary 19th Feb 1817 ( http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1810s/t18170219-32.html), sentenced to death. Arrived as a convict on the ‘Ocean’ in 1818 (Convicted Middlesex). In 1820, was on the ‘General Gates’ with four other convicts including Nathaniel EWER and made their way to New Zealand before return – read details in NZ Historical Records Vol 1 (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-McN01Hist.html). This shows Nathaniel and Francis knew one another.

Edward EWER, arrived as a convict on the ‘Mary’ in 1822 (Berks Assizes). d. Bathurst NSW, 1859.
Ann EWER nee EDWARDS, born in colony, married in Parramatta, 1825. d. Bathurst, 1854.
Edward Jr EWER, b. 1827. Married Catharine HARAN/AHERN in Carcoar, NSW, 1851. Confectioner, declared insolvent in 1863. d. 1884.

Matilda EWER, b.1813, arrived in Tasmania on ‘Rajah’ in 1841 (convicted Cambridge) aged 27, associated with the creation of the Rajah quilt made on the voyage, and held by the National Gallery of Australia (http://www.nga.gov.au/RajahQuilt/). m. Giles TIMMS (free) in Hobart, 1843. Dep. Tasmania with conditional pardon for Melbourne on ‘City of Melbourne’ on 18 Apr 1852.

Richard EWER, arrived in Tasmania on ‘Marquis of Hastings’ in 1842 (Convicted Bucks). Dep. Tasmania, free of servitude, on ‘City of Melbourne’, 2 Dec 1851.

James Garnet EWER, arrival date unknown. Born abt 1799. Married Louisa Hawkins in Kelso NSW (essentially a suburb of Bathurst) in 1859. d. Sydney NSW 1886.

Unknown EWER, a Mr. Ewer is shown as an unassisted arrival on four dates between 1847 and 1852, in each case from Moreton Bay (Qld), and is assumed to be a mariner.

W EWER, arrived in South Australia by 1840-12-31.
Harry EWER, South Australia cemetery index for 1861.