Samuel Lovelee

4

Paul Berresford on 30th December 2012

CONVICTS ~ BOUND FOR AUSTRALIA Two Brothers From Lincolnshire CONVICTS ~ BOUND FOR AUSTRALIA Two Brothers From Lincolnshire R ichard and Samuel were brothers born into rural poverty in Lincolnshire at the end of the eighteenth century. Their names in official records have been spelled as Lovelee, Lovlee, Lovely, Loveley, or in earlier generations, Lobley. Indeed, their parents were Thomas and Seillina LOBLEY of Lincolnshire and their baptisms, I believe, were both recorded in the Parish Register of Navenby in Lincolnshire; Samuel’s on 23rd July 1791 recorded as ~ “Samuel son of Thomas and Selina Lobley p (paupers)” and Richard’s baptism was probably recorded, I believe, as “Robert son of Thomas and Selina Lobley p”, five years earlier on July 3rd 1786. Their mother’s name was often shortened at the time to Sills and she gave birth to a total of, at least, 9 children, 7 of whom survived into adulthood. Her son Thomas being my gggg grandfather. B orn in 1786, Richard Lovely, was a labourer at a time of great hardship amongst agricultural labourers. Four years after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, on 6th (or 8th) March 1819, at the age of 32, Richard was convicted at the Lincoln Lent Assizes. He was charged with “stealing 17 ewe sheep, the property of J Bain (reported as Balm) of Hacconby and R Edwards of Basingthorpe”. In Lincolnshire records, Richard was recorded as living in Boston / Skellingthorpe, Lincolnshire, but this piece of information could be misleading, as the place of the crime was sometimes recorded as the criminal’s abode. Edward’s sheep were stolen from Basingthorpe and Richard was apprehended in Boston. Australian records later show Raithby, Lincoln as his “native place”. We should understand that theft at that time, even of relatively inexpensive items, was a capital offence. In 1788, for example, there were about 160 crimes punishable by hanging in England. They included stealing sheep, cattle, clothes and goods worth £2 or more . The tide of public opinion had turned against the number of public executions produced by such an extreme legal framework and alternatives had been sought for many years. As reported on 12th March 1819 in the Stamford Mercury (and on 20th March 1819 in the Macclesfield Courier and Stockport Express), Richard was found guilty as charged and the sentence of death was commuted to transportation for life. Although the judge, Mr Justice Burrough, almost “left him for execution” because of his “flagrant” crime, this offer of clemency, like all others at this time, would have been made in the name of King George III through the Prince Regent, George, Prince of Wales. After his trial, Richard was held in Lincoln Castle, then transferred, in the charge of a “turnkey”, to the hulks at Sheerness, specifically, to “Retribution” , a prison hulk, moored at Woolwich, until the date of his transportation. The Stamford Mercury reported, and other records confirm, that he was removed from gaol on Thursday 17th and received on the Retribution, from Lincoln on the 19th June 1819. These “Hulks” were rotting, old sailing ships, taken out of service, de-masted and moored as “temporary” prisons. They were introduced to relieve the pressure on overcrowded prisons, and were bursting with such criminals as Richard. The notion of transportation of convicts had first emerged around 1619 in Queen Elizabeth’s time but it seemed to come into vogue around 1680 during Charles II's reign. It was intended to be an alternative to execution and it became a formal concept in 1718 with George I's 'Transportation Act'. In the final quarter of the eighteenth century, after the independence of America in 1776, transportation to that colony was no longer an option. So prisons and the hulks became severely overcrowded. Conditions on board the hulks were, for many years, appalling. Over a period of time though, they slowly improved. The desperate conditions that prisoners endured are well represented in the opening scenes from Dickens’ “Great Expectations”. Transportation of convicts to Australia started with the “First Fleet” of 1787-8 with 717 convicts, 191 marines and 19 officers establishing the colony. In the late summer of 1819, six months after his trial, Richard began his journey to Australia. For many of the rural poor, except those who had fought abroad, this journey must have been difficult to imagine. Most would have, under normal circumstances, lived their lives close to their birth-place. The departures of the transportation ships were all planned to avoid bad weather in the Southern Ocean. One source shows Richard was due to leave on 22nd August 1819. He embarked, with 368 other convicts on 11th September 1819 on the Royal Navy vessel “HMS Dromedary” under the command of Captain Richard Skinner R.N. Richard was shown as 33yrs old on arrival. One prisoner was re-landed before departure. The Lincolnshire archives noted Richard’s destination as New South Wales but, in fact, the N.S.W. Colonial Secretary Papers Index reveals that he disembarked, after a journey of 121 days, on 10th January the following year, at Hobart, Van Diemen’s Land (later to be renamed Tasmania). This colony was reputed to be a tougher regime than on the mainland. Richard was one of 347 convicts to land at Hobart. 22 men then sailed on to Sydney and landed 18 days later on 28th January 1820. The surgeon on the ship was George Fairfowl. No convicts were lost, which testifies that the regime on board “HMS Dromedary” had some consideration for the welfare of the convicts. Perhaps this was helped by the routines and practices of the officers of this Royal Navy vessel. This was the third fastest trip from England to Australia in those days. Although conditions below deck on the “Dromedary” would not have been pleasant, the convicts did not suffer the horrendous conditions that, only thirty years earlier, befell the convicts on board three of the ships of the “Second Fleet” to Australia. When these three ships docked in Sydney Cove, the crews of the “Neptune”, “Scarborough” and “Surprize” unloaded their heaps of stinking, dying humans in irons. Colonists stood unbelieving at the water’s edge. Of the 1017 convicts who had embarked on the three ships, only ¾ - 759 survived the journey. 273 were buried at sea and 486 of the survivors were unloaded too sick to feed or care for themselves. There were more deaths after they were unloaded. Dying men and women were heaved from the decks like bales of cotton, one on top of the other, into the boats below. These boats rowed to within wading distance of the shore and the convicts were levered over the side, some drowning in the shallows. Some of the wounds from the shackles were down to the bone. Piles of clothes, stiff with filth and full of fleas, were burned on the beach and the convicts wrapped in blankets until fresh clothes were made. In contrast, conditions on some of the ships in this second fleet, (which did not sail in convoy), were much better. Convicts on those ships were treated fairly with strict humanity. The agents employed had great influence on conditions aboard. On arrival, Richard Lovely was assigned the Convict Number: 47620. His age was recorded as 33, height 5 ‘ 4 ¼”, eyes dark brown, hair light brown, complexion – sallow. In one place he was recorded as a farm servant and butcher. He did not stay out of trouble. His convict indent shows that, a year and a half later, on September 29th 1821 he was found to have stolen wheat and poultry from the premises of his master, W.A. Broadribb at New Town. He received 50 lashes, which, to us may seem like punishment enough, but he was also returned to public works. This hard labour involved such tasks as building roads or even working as part of a human plough team, possibly in chain gangs. Richard survived but he must have wished for a better life on the mainland, where, earlier that year, his younger brother, Samuel had been transported as a convict. It’s difficult to know what the brothers knew of each other, or how – through official channels or otherwise. We would expect that Samuel knew of Richard’s earlier sentence, but did Richard know that one of his younger brother’s had followed him “to the ends of the Earth”? Would Sam have been able to find out that Richard was on Van Dieman’s Land? Would he, as a veteran, have been able to get word out to Richard through other convicts or guards? We may never know. One thing is certain, there must have been some communication between the brothers because, in 1824, in an effort to escape to the mainland, Richard assumed the name of Pearce and on May 11th 1824 sailed to Sydney on the “Caroline”. Here is the first confirmation that the brothers knew of each other’s whereabouts when Samuel, remarkably, by this time pardoned and a free married man, petitioned for Richard to be allowed to remain in Sydney a reply is recorded on 2nd June – I presume that the petition was denied. By this time records show that Samuel was having convict mechanics assigned to him. Inevitably, on June 23rd 1824, Richard is recorded as being apprehended as a runaway from Van Diemen’s Land and held in Sydney Gaol. Three weeks later on July 13th 1824 Richard was provided a passage to Hobart and 4 days later as a prisoner in Sydney Gaol he was to be embarked on the “John Bull” for Port Dalrymple his passage was also recorded . A muster of convicts in 1826 reveals that Richard was “Transported to Maria Island”. Another muster in 1830 repeats the entry. In one record he was, again described as a butcher. Further musters in 1832 and 1833 show him assigned to Mr Adam Amos. Records show that Richard received a Ticket of Leave on 25th October 1832. It also records a fine of 5/5 for being drunk – a celebration, perhaps? A Ticket of Leave finally provided him with permission, under certain restrictions, to seek employment for his own benefit and to acquire property. The convict was restricted to reside in a certain district and had to report regularly to magistrates, presenting the Ticket of Leave, which was liable to be revoked at any time, at the pleasure of the Governor. The convict would then revert to the situation of a convict in every aspect. I n 1833 on the 8th April, Tasmanian records show that, with the permission of the Lieutenant General, he was married to Elizabeth Green in Sorrell, just north of Hobart, Tasmania. Elizabeth had arrived six months earlier as a “free woman” of 16 years old, on board the “Princess Royal”. Richard was 31 years her senior (47). It was noted that she was “of good repute”. The voyage of this vessel had been specifically arranged to bring females for marriage and for domestic service for the colony of Van Deimen’s Land. The passenger list shows no sign of the origin of Elizabeth Green which hints that she did not originate from any of the sources that provided the vast majority of the other free women;- the Female Penitentary at Pentonville, the charitable Guardian Asylum, the National Guardian Servants’ Institution, the Chelsea School of Reform, the Refuge for the Destitute or the workhouse. Perhaps that is why she maintained her “good repute”, for the majority were to lose the protection of the Ladies’ Committee that had been set up to look after them all on their arrival – the loose morals of the bulk of the passengers was the reason for their abandonment. The “Princess Royal” was a 402 ton barque was “the cheapest conveyance” and her crew were “engaged at the lowest penny, while many of them proved drunken and became the ‘associates’ of the worst of the women”. In fact the surgeon and the crew were so often drunk that it is little wonder that the vessel ran aground on reaching Tasmania and the women transferred to a steamer and taken to Hobart Town. “Fair Game” - The voyage has been commemorated in written accounts, dance and in a cartoon entitled “Fair Game” with butterflies representing the women on their journey from England on the left, to the eager convicts in the colony on the right. Richard was eventually granted a Conditional Pardon, No. 552 on 24 February 1834, 13 years after his arrival in the colony. A Conditional Pardon, when approved by His Majesty through the Secretary of State, restored the Rights of Freedom from the date of the instrument within the colony, but the person was not able to leave the colony, only an absolute pardon could restore that right. Once confirmed, the pardon could not be revoked. The person was allowed to pursue legal occupation in any part of the country as if they had never been a convict. Richard and Elizabeth had a daughter, Mary Ann Jane Lovelee, born 25th February 1836 in Hobart and baptised just over a week later on 6th March . This was just after Charles Darwin left Hobart Town on “The Beagle”, after a 12 day stay. In 1836/7, Richard Lovely and Elizabeth, had a second child, a son, John Lovelee and three years later another, named after Richard’s own father, Thomas Lovelee. Although records suggest that both boys were registered at Campbelltown NSW, it is also recorded that on the 14th April 1838 that "The Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to allow this man to proceed to Sydney per Marianne Watson". The ship landed on 22nd April 1838, among the passengers were listed in the Hobart Town Courier of Friday 27th April 1838 p2, Shipping Intelligence Hobart Town departures on 17th April, a “Mr Lovely, wife and 2 children” - so it seems that their second child, John was born in Van Diemen’s Land. Richard and his family would probably have settled near to, or even with his brother Samuel. Sam may have appreciated the support of Richard and his family, as this was the start of a turbulent time for him and his marriage with Isabella. At the moment little more is known until a death was recorded in Irish Town (now Bankstown) NSW on 17th July 1847 of a Richard Lovely aged 61, which tallies with his birth date. He was buried at St Luke’s, Liverpool, NSW, This would have left Elizabeth with three children under 12. Tragically, on New Year’s Day the following year, 1848, Richard’s elder son, John died aged 12. Elizabeth must have been devastated, losing two dear ones within six months. John’s Burial Certificate reveals that he was living in Denham Court, only a few miles from Campbelltown and Airds, where Sam owned property, and that John’s job was a “Shepherd Boy at Varrowville, nephew of Farmer Lovely, Cambelltown”. This suggests to me that Samuel reported the death. I have found no clues as to how Elizabeth managed to support her remaining children. It is possible that she quickly remarried (she was about 32), or perhaps she was able to support them herself, although this seems unlikely. It is possible that Samuel helped her. No records have been found to indicate what happened. The Denham Court link is an interesting one, as another family, the Fulljames lived there and had links there for a few years. Their daughter Hannah was born there and one of their sons was christened there. Sam, Richard’s brother, knew the couple well. Another of the Fulljames’ children was born at “Retreat”, Bringelly, which could be the “Retreat Farm” mentioned in one of Samuel’s adverts as a neighbouring farm to his farm in Bringelly. It is likely that Richard Fulljames was working on that farm as a journeyman carpenter. Richard and Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary Ann Jane Lovelee, later married William Chappelow (also in 1857 in Newtown NSW). They had six daughters and three sons, seven of their children married producing an incredible total of 43 grandchildren. Hardly surprising then that Chappelows are still associated with this part of the state. There was a Chappelow Paddock in Hurstville near to the Blue Post Inn (refer to Samuel’s will). It became the town’s first sports oval and could possibly be the 15 acre “Kempt Field” that remains, adjacent to Forest Road at the present time. Richard and Elizabeth’s only surviving son, Thomas Lovelee, aged 24, married Margaret McNamara in Parramatta in 1864 and it is from this couple that all of the “Lovelees” presently living in Australia are descended. They headed north on horseback in 1864, Thomas had, apparently, lived up to that time in the Windsor area. Very soon after their arrival, he settled down as an overseer on Mollee, then a cattle station, extending right through the Bohena Creek country in Pilliga. After leaving Mollee, Thomas Lovelee devoted a number of years to various businesses in Narrabri and district and for some time bought fat cattle for The Riverstone Meatworks. He selected “Dunraven” near Mollee as his home, which he retained until 1918 when he retired and went to Narrabri to live, handing the property over to his sons. At this time, the famous “Governor Gang” was operating in the district. Inspector Day, afterwards chief of police, was stationed in Narrabri, and knowing Thomas had a thorough knowledge of the Bohena Creek country, called on him to guide the police in their search for the outlaws. Thomas consented to do so, but insisted on the right to remain unarmed. From 1865 until 1884 Thomas and Margaret recorded the births of ten children : Theresa 1865, Martha Mary 1867 (died in 1937), Laura 1869, Edward Thomas 1871, Ernest Arthur 1873 (also died in 1937), Margaret Elizabeth 1875, Herbert George 1877, Stella Jessie 1879, Ella 1882, and Clara Fanny 1884 …all were recorded in Wee Waa or, from 1873, Narrabri. Thomas Lovelee, the son of the convict, Richard, died at Narrabri in 1931 and the grand age of 91 years. He had kept the fact that he was the son of a convict a secret from his family and he and his wife became prominent citizens of Narrabri, regarded as a “proper gentleman and gentlewoman”. His obituary, published in The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 23rd February 1931 told of an early pioneer who had become a prominent citizen of the area, who, “from the day he and his wife arrived in Narrabri on horseback in 1865 till just before his death was actively associated with every historical event in the life of the community”. ---ooOoo--- Richard Lovely’s younger brother, Samuel Lovelee, was born in 1791. Poverty has always been a great recruiting agent and he too must have suffered in the lean years of the early 19th Century, enlisting in the Royal Horse and Foot Artillery to fight in the Peninsular Wars (1808 – 1813), co-incidentally in the same troop as my father 130 years later. Records show that Samuel returned to Europe with his regiment and fought in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, when Napoleon was finally defeated. Samuel appears on a list of those 39,009 who were awarded the Waterloo Medal. This picture shows the Royal Artillery at the Battle of Vittoria 1813. It seems likely that Samuel would have fought in this battle. In the state records of NSW he is shown as a “veteran”. In 1820, five years after Napoleon’s defeat, Samuel, 28, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to death. Around that time one court gave the following instructions to a jury :- “A burglary must be committed at night time, when there is not light enough to discern the face of a man; therefore it is punished so severely. If a man take advantage of the night to commit a robbery in a dwelling-house, the law thinks it proper to punish that always capitally.” At his trial on 15th July, he was recorded as living in Anwick in Lincolnshire, not far from Sleaford. Fortunately for Samuel, an offer was made to commute the death sentence to “life”. It would have been in the new King’s name. Samuel must have accepted and was transported for life to New South Wales. Just like the men in the picture, he bid, “Adieu, Adieu my Native Land”. Two months later he was received on the prison hulk “Captivity”, formally HMS Bellerophon at Portsmouth. Ironically, HMS Bellerophon was the same vessel that had transported Napoleon, after his surrender, from France, to Torb