Hello Alan The 16 entries include gardener, carpenter, cooper, storekeeper, carter etc and two farmers. The Wyndhams owned Dalwood, so it rather surprises me that any employees would be called farmers. In other records, in the early days farm workers were called servants and later agricultural labourers. Was the term farmer generally used for farm workers in 1871, or does it imply some rather different status ? A Maitland Mercury report of 10.7.1866 refers to James Kimorley, Dangerfield farm, Dalwood. There is also another similar reference. However Dangerfield and Kimmorley both worked for the Wyndhams at Dalwood. Is it possible that part of Dalwood was farmed on some kind of share cropping basis after the vineyard and winery became the main agricultural enterprise of the property and the main focus of Wyndham's attention ? Cheers Ken From: "Alan Eade" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PJ] Dalwood 1871 Hello Ken There is a 1872 Post Office directory for NSW http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hcastle/grevilles/lists/abc/bra.html 16 entries for Dalwood, nothing for Kimmorley You may have to access the electoral roll (however, the Kimmorleys would have to be landholders to be recorded) Regards Alan

From: "Alan Eade" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PJ] Dalwood 1871 Hello Ken There is a 1872 Post Office directory for NSW http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hcastle/grevilles/lists/abc/bra.html 16 entries for Dalwood, nothing for Kimmorley You may have to access the electoral roll (however, the Kimmorleys would have to be landholders to be recorded) Regards Alan Hello Alan Thank you Alan for the valuable evidence and the website. Back to the drawing board for me ! Are there Post Office Directories or anything similar for any other year ? Cheers Ken

Regarding this below ... .>>Urgent. Responses needed by 20 September. The below has just come to my notice and is of interest to anyone with Irish ancestory. It means the heritage of modern Ireland will have no statutory protection and thus has the potential to be lost. A short email to the people listed below might help to protect the heritage of the Irish now spread all over the world, that their descendants travel to Ireland to explore. >>Regards Elizabeth Roberts We wrote to the person involved and this is his reply : To: Maree Larsen Subject: Fwd: URGENT Proposed delisting of Irish Heritage post 1700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian K Duffy - (DAHG) <[email protected]> Date: 19 September 2011 20:33 Subject: RE: URGENT Proposed delisting of Irish Heritage post 1700 The policy on the inclusion of post 1700 AD monuments in the Record of Monuments and Places is the subject of an ongoing review by the National Monuments Service. You may be aware that the inclusion of such monuments in the current RMP is not consistent across all counties and with a view to issuing a revised and updated RMP it is necessary to consider how best to ensure the protection of all elements of our archaeological heritage. Under the Regulations governing the issuing of the RMP it is not possible to add or remove monuments without reissuing the RMP for an entire county. Therefore there is no intention to alter the RMPs until such time as we are in a position to commence reissuing the RMPs county by county and this will not happen until we have completed our review and updating of the current RMPs and the formulation of the policy and criteria for inclusion of monuments. Brian K. Duffy Chief Archaeologist National Monuments Service Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht Room G40 Custom House Dublin 1 Tel. 01 8882103 email [email protected]

Hello Maree, Please forgive me for slightly changing subject line --- I know this annoys people who have certain sorts of emailing software, so I only rarely do it. -- but I think this could be very important .. if indeed part of a growing and widespread trend. Funny thing re your response ... I got exactly the same reply too! I'd written specifically about delisting or flagging/sceduling/tagging for delisting but the reply did not even make a single reference to 'delisting' or to other specifics I have asked about. I wrote back again pointing out that what I'd writting on (e.g. reported intention or consideration to delist items) had not been addressed (mentioned). It seems clear now why not .. because a standard reply is being sent to people. In the original alert which went out re this matter, which is long, you'll find mention that the intended for, or being considered for, post-1700 items for delisting can be seen online somewhere. But when I tried finding any list of them at the website indicated I could not. I then specifically asked Mr Duffy about this and he replied that this was because of technical problems they are currently experiencing. Other comment elsewhere on this matter which I am aware of has included comment from two archaeologists who have said this is symptomatic of a 'universal' or 'global' trend which one of them termed "RETREAT FROM HERITAGE". Perhaps that is not a bad overall name for it. More can be found by Googling .. for example in Fenlands UK a Council has just abolished requirement from development approval processes that sites likely to have heritage values should be given archaeological surveys prior to demolition/excavation/highrise whatever. The Councillor reporting this was rather proud of what they had done. But it is disastrous in my opinion, even if it does save developers money and therefore may stimulate building in that council area. In NSW there has apparently been instruction to 'review' already listed heritage items to determine if they are necessary. Already I know of one natural heritage item (geoheritage) at Lapstone which has been delisted. That was a site which was nominated by geologists and took many years to get listed on the online state inventory (via LEP gazettal). Then some years after then it was recommended for removal as unnecessary in a review of Blue Mountains natural heritage inventory. The person who did that review was not a geologist. The reasons given for why it was deemed unnecessary are just plain wrong (and I AM a geologist so trust me on that ....). So far the only other listed natural heritage item that I know of that is under consideration of delisting is in Parramatta LGA. Does anyone else know of items that are already listed but which are being considered now once again with the question of are they "necessary"? Gee, just how "necessary" is any heritage? The time for consideration of that should have been during the usually very long process of nomination through to listing. Why is it being all reconsidered now? In the Irish case it seems to be (but I do not yet know or understand full details) that some counties have listed post-1700 items and others have not, or at least are very little along the way to doing so. Therefore in the name of "consistency" they seem to be going to reduce to 'lowest common denominator' - be delisting those post-1700 sites already listed. Is that what others understand is going on, please? By the way .. I am part Irish, on father's side (mother's side is German). My Irish forebear of the same surname was sent here following quite a disturbance they had in Ireland back in 1798, That was when many who thought Ireland should be for the 'native' Irish (many 'United Irishmen' may thought this), reckoned the conquering English should go home. Fat chance of the latter, and the uprising was rapidly put down after a short war that was very brutal with atrocities committed on both sides. Now the failed Irish war of independence in 1798 is certainly post-1700 and if any of the monuments or heritage places/items of that war are proposed for delisting there will surely be unrest, as it is an almost sacred, and still highly emotional, part of Irish history to very many people. Best Regards, John ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue Sep 20 4:17 , 'Maree Larsen' sent: Regarding this below ... .>>Urgent. Responses needed by 20 September. The below has just come to my notice and is of interest to anyone with Irish ancestory. It means the heritage of modern Ireland will have no statutory protection and thus has the potential to be lost. A short email to the people listed below might help to protect the heritage of the Irish now spread all over the world, that their descendants travel to Ireland to explore. >>Regards Elizabeth Roberts We wrote to the person involved and this is his reply : To: Maree Larsen Subject: Fwd: URGENT Proposed delisting of Irish Heritage post 1700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian K Duffy - (DAHG) <[1][email protected]> Date: 19 September 2011 20:33 Subject: RE: URGENT Proposed delisting of Irish Heritage post 1700 The policy on the inclusion of post 1700 AD monuments in the Record of Monuments and Places is the subject of an ongoing review by the National Monuments Service. You may be aware that the inclusion of such monuments in the current RMP is not consistent across all counties and with a view to issuing a revised and updated RMP it is necessary to consider how best to ensure the protection of all elements of our archaeological heritage. Under the Regulations governing the issuing of the RMP it is not possible to add or remove monuments without reissuing the RMP for an entire county. Therefore there is no intention to alter the RMPs until such time as we are in a position to commence reissuing the RMPs county by county and this will not happen until we have completed our review and updating of the current RMPs and the formulation of the policy and criteria for inclusion of monuments. Brian K. Duffy Chief Archaeologist National Monuments Service Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht Room G40 Custom House Dublin 1 Tel. 01 8882103 email [2][email protected] ---------------------- To send a message to the Port Jackson Convicts List, send an email to [3][email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [4][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ) References 1. javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','') 2. javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','') 3. javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','') 4. javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')

Hello Ken There is a 1872 Post Office directory for NSW http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hcastle/grevilles/lists/abc/bra.html 16 entries for Dalwood, nothing for Kimmorley You may have to access the electoral roll (however, the Kimmorleys would have to be landholders to be recorded) Regards Alan

Hello Lesley Thank you. I am sure you are right. Nonetheless I have a record received from someone unknown a long time ago that J Kimmorley was at Dalwood at the 1871 census. I know from other information that either John or James Kimmorley was very likely to have been at Dalwood in 1871, but I would like to know which one. Is it possible that there could be a partial census, or muster, or Hunter Valley muster, or any other record that could be possibly be the source of this information ? Cheers Ken Hi Ken The 1871 Census is not available. Regards Lesley Uebel

Urgent. Responses needed by 20 September. The below has just come to my notice and is of interest to anyone with Irish ancestory. It means the heritage of modern Ireland will have no statutory protection and thus has the potential to be lost. A short email to the people listed below might help to protect the heritage of the Irish now spread all over the world, that their descendants travel to Ireland to explore. Regards Elizabeth Roberts It is proposed by the Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht that monuments dating to the period post- AD1700 will be delisted from the Record of Monuments & Places (RMP), thus removing their statutory protection, and their conditioning within the planning system These monuments have been highlighted in green on the Department’s website www.archaeology.ie <http://www.archaeology.ie/> The Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI) has been locating, recording and describing the archaeological monuments of this country for several decades. The criteria for selection, of monuments to be recorded in each county have, however, been variable. Significant numbers of post-AD 1700 monuments have been included in the RMPs for Cork, Galway and Dublin, but not in a consistent manner. In 1982, guidelines were provided the Cork Archaeological Survey advising them to survey “everything up to 1700 and selectively afterwards”. A detailed and systematic survey was undertaken by the Cork Archaeological Survey in order to make an informed selection of post-AD 1700 monuments. The ASI is currently preparing a revision of the RMP. The ASI is obliged under government policy (2005 White Paper, ‘Regulating Better’) to ensure that there is consistency across the recorded monument listings for each county. Primarily due to limited resources, as well as a back-log in processing the previously collected datasets, the ASI is proposing that any post-AD 1700 monuments previously recorded on the RMP should be de-listed. The National Inventory for Architectural Heritage (NIAH) whose work ‘involves identifying and recording the architectural heritage of Ireland from 1700 to the present day’ does not currently record many of the smaller scale or more industrial monuments that are integral to development of Irish history and society during this period. Position of Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) · The AD 1700 date, although used as a cut-off point, has no basis in legislation in defining whether a monument is or is not archaeological. By stating that all pre-AD 1700 monuments are archaeological, it does not preclude monuments of post-AD 1700 as being defined as archaeological; ‘date is not in itself a determinant of archaeological significance or interest. Any material remains which can contribute to understanding past societies may be considered to have an element of archaeological significance.’ Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (Dúchas 1999). · Sites currently being scheduled for delisting – such as vernacular buildings, lime kilns, holy wells, bridges, milestones, industrial sites etc. – will not qualify for inclusion in the Record of Protected Structures of each county and will therefore be left without any form of protection. · Any removal of protection from post-AD 1700 sites on land would be at odds with the legislation for shipwrecks, resulting in different protections for sea and land. · The archaeology of the post-AD 1700 and industrial period is the archaeology of the Diaspora and the immediate ancestors of the Irish people. By delisting the post-1700 monuments, access to a valuable resource will be removed. · In contrast to the ASI’s proposed removal of the industrial heritage record of Cork and other counties, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) continues to build on their interest in structures dating to this period. The NIEA’s Industrial Heritage Record lists more than 16,000 features. Although many entries are somewhat limited in the information provided, a systematic second survey of historic buildings in Northern Ireland is underway, and results are accessible through the Industrial Heritage Database in the Monuments and Buildings Record. · There is increasing recognition of the value of our industrial heritage at regional and local level. Projects such as the Industrial Heritage Survey of Fingal led by Mary McMahon, are systematically examining the documentary and cartographic sources (Phase 1) and have uncovered hundreds of new sites. Funded by the Heritage Council through Fingal County Council it is ridiculous to believe these sites would have no legal protection. Similarly the numerous sites excavated under archaeological planning conditions would not have taken place if the current proposal had been in place. IAI proposals · The IAI proposes that the ASI internal policy of removing post-AD 1700 monuments from the RMP has to change, and that the ASI needs to better acknowledge the post-AD 1700 archaeological resource. · The NIAH should record all post-AD 1700 monuments on a comprehensive rather than selective basis, thereby fulfilling its remit as a national inventory. · IAI contends that there is an opportunity to tap into LEADER funding and the Jobbridge national internship scheme to assist in the recording of all post-AD 1700 monuments. Such an initiative could also provide training opportunities for unemployed persons, particularly those in the archaeological profession. Emails to be sent to To be sent to: 1. Brian K. Duffy Chief Archaeologist National Monuments Service Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht Room G40, Custom House, Dublin 1 Tel. 01 8882103, email [email protected] 2. IAI, send to [email protected], attention Finola O’Carroll, chairperson. 3. The Minister is Jimmy Deenihan, [email protected]

Hi Ken The 1871 Census is not available. Regards Lesley Uebel http://www.claimaconvict.net/index.html CLAIM A CONVICT email: [email protected] On 18/09/2011 9:29 PM, Ken Thompson wrote: > I would much appreciate it if anyone is able to check whether there was a Kimmorley at Dalwood at the 1871 census. > Ken Thompson

Elizabeth, I have just seen you posting. I take it that neither you nor Lesley would have any objection if I were to forward this to a number of other FH websites that I am involved with to give it wider circulation ? Stephen --- On Mon, 19/9/11, Convict Trail <[email protected]> wrote: From: Convict Trail <[email protected]> Subject: [PJ] URGENT Proposed delisting of Irish Heritage post 1700 To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Monday, 19 September, 2011, 2:06 Urgent. Responses needed by 20 September. The below has just come to my notice and is of interest to anyone with Irish ancestory.  It means the heritage of modern Ireland will have no statutory protection and thus has the potential to be lost. A short email to the people listed below might help to protect the heritage of the Irish  now spread all over the world, that their descendants travel to Ireland to explore. Regards Elizabeth Roberts It is proposed by the Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht that monuments dating to the period post- AD1700 will be delisted from the Record of Monuments & Places (RMP), thus removing their statutory protection, and their conditioning within the planning system These monuments have been highlighted in green on the Department’s website www.archaeology.ie <http://www.archaeology.ie/> The Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI) has been locating, recording and describing the archaeological monuments of this country for several decades. The criteria for selection, of monuments to be recorded in each county have, however, been variable. Significant numbers of post-AD 1700 monuments have been included in the RMPs for Cork, Galway and Dublin, but not in a consistent manner. In 1982, guidelines were provided the Cork Archaeological Survey advising them to survey “everything up to 1700 and selectively afterwards”. A detailed and systematic survey was undertaken by the Cork Archaeological Survey in order to make an informed selection of post-AD 1700 monuments. The ASI is currently preparing a revision of the RMP. The ASI is obliged under government policy (2005 White Paper, ‘Regulating Better’) to ensure that there is consistency across the recorded monument listings for each county. Primarily due to limited resources, as well as a back-log in processing the previously collected datasets, the ASI is proposing that any post-AD 1700 monuments previously recorded on the RMP should be de-listed. The National Inventory for Architectural Heritage (NIAH) whose work ‘involves identifying and recording the architectural heritage of Ireland from 1700 to the present day’ does not currently record many of the smaller scale or more industrial monuments that are integral to development of Irish history and society during this period. Position of Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) ·        The AD 1700 date, although used as a cut-off point, has no basis in legislation in defining whether a monument is or is not archaeological. By stating that all pre-AD 1700 monuments are archaeological, it does not preclude monuments of post-AD 1700 as being defined as archaeological; ‘date is not in itself a determinant of archaeological significance or interest. Any material remains which can contribute to understanding past societies may be considered to have an element of archaeological significance.’ Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (Dúchas 1999). ·         Sites currently being scheduled for delisting – such as vernacular buildings, lime kilns, holy wells, bridges, milestones, industrial sites etc. – will not qualify for inclusion in the Record of Protected Structures of each county and will therefore be left without any form of protection. ·         Any removal of protection from post-AD 1700 sites on land would be at odds with the legislation for shipwrecks, resulting in different protections for sea and land. ·         The archaeology of the post-AD 1700 and industrial period is the archaeology of the Diaspora and the immediate ancestors of the Irish people. By delisting the post-1700 monuments, access to a valuable resource will be removed. ·         In contrast to the ASI’s proposed removal of the industrial heritage record of Cork and other counties, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) continues to build on their interest in structures dating to this period. The NIEA’s Industrial Heritage Record lists more than 16,000 features. Although many entries are somewhat limited in the information provided, a systematic second survey of historic buildings in Northern Ireland is underway, and results are accessible through the Industrial Heritage Database in the Monuments and Buildings Record. ·         There is increasing recognition of the value of our industrial heritage at regional and local level. Projects such as the Industrial Heritage Survey of Fingal led by Mary McMahon, are systematically examining the documentary and cartographic sources (Phase 1) and have uncovered hundreds of new sites.  Funded by the Heritage Council through Fingal County Council it is ridiculous to believe these sites would have no legal protection. Similarly the numerous sites excavated under archaeological planning conditions would not have taken place if the current proposal had been in place. IAI proposals ·         The IAI proposes that the ASI internal policy of removing post-AD 1700 monuments from the RMP has to change, and that the ASI needs to better acknowledge the post-AD 1700 archaeological resource. ·         The NIAH should record all post-AD 1700 monuments on a comprehensive rather than selective basis, thereby fulfilling its remit as a national inventory. ·         IAI contends that there is an opportunity to tap into LEADER funding and the Jobbridge national internship scheme to assist in the recording of all post-AD 1700 monuments. Such an initiative could also provide training opportunities for unemployed persons, particularly those in the archaeological profession. Emails to be sent to To be sent to: 1.     Brian K. Duffy Chief Archaeologist National Monuments Service Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht Room G40, Custom House, Dublin 1 Tel. 01 8882103, email [email protected] 2.     IAI, send to [email protected], attention Finola O’Carroll, chairperson. 3.     The Minister is Jimmy Deenihan, [email protected] ---------------------- To send a message to the Port Jackson Convicts List, send an email to  [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would much appreciate it if anyone is able to check whether there was a Kimmorley at Dalwood at the 1871 census. Ken Thompson

Hi Beryl, During the early years of the list I ran many threads and most listers responded. A few years ago I tried again a few times and the response was virtually nil - so I decided not to try again. You can, at any time, post the names of your convicts and the transports on which they arrived. Regards Lesley Uebel http://www.claimaconvict.net/index.html CLAIM A CONVICT email: [email protected] On 14/09/2011 7:53 AM, George Whatson wrote: > Hi Lesley and listers, > > It's a few years since I put anything into the list, however since I started > on my 2 sons-in-law, and a couple of convicts who married into my own > family, my original 11 convicts has grown to 28. That's what comes of having > adopted children. > Going through the archives of this list, I notice that it is a few years > since we had a convict roll call, so I wondered if we could have another one > this year. > We at Wyong F.H.G have had an increase in members, and a few have joined our > convict group, where we help the "newbies" search for convict ancestors. I > have found some previously unknown people who have, in past years been > searching the same convicts as I am now doing. Their help has been a > tremendous boost to my research, I can start the ball rolling with a couple > in the letter "A " > > Beryl Whatson > >

Hello Lyn Thank you for the suggestion. Your scenario was about right for the first work of my convict after he left Mudie, but unfortunately it doesn't help regarding the missing period before he worked for Mudie (or on a nearby property). His next master was George Wyndham. He sent my convict to Mahngarinda, which Wyndham had acquired only a few years earlier. Wyndham had sent a supervisor there to start a "stock station". Quite likely my convict looked after either sheep or cattle, so there is a parallel with your ancestor on the Snowy Mountains. My problem remains one of discovering records. There is no known record even for how and when Wyndham acquired my convict, although it was certainly from another landholder in the Hunter Valley. I have now been given a helpful lead which might discover some information about a Wilkinson family at Georges River. Fingers crossed ! Cheers Ken From: "Stan Elgood" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PJ] James Mudie Hi Ken, Can I suggest another scenario. One of my ancestors was sent to mind cattle on a property in what is now known as the Snowy Mountains. Squatters were claiming land and sending an overseer with cattle to squat on it. Queensland at that time was a new frontier also. If this was the case could he still have been under the same master. Lyn

Hi Lesley and listers, It's a few years since I put anything into the list, however since I started on my 2 sons-in-law, and a couple of convicts who married into my own family, my original 11 convicts has grown to 28. That's what comes of having adopted children. Going through the archives of this list, I notice that it is a few years since we had a convict roll call, so I wondered if we could have another one this year. We at Wyong F.H.G have had an increase in members, and a few have joined our convict group, where we help the "newbies" search for convict ancestors. I have found some previously unknown people who have, in past years been searching the same convicts as I am now doing. Their help has been a tremendous boost to my research, I can start the ball rolling with a couple in the letter "A " Beryl Whatson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 5:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: AUS-PT-JACKSON-CONVICTS Digest, Vol 6, Issue 175 ******************

Dear Lesley Thank you so much for the info on the King family. You will have made a family very happy regards Lorna Prendergast

Hi Ken, Can I suggest another scenario. One of my ancestors was sent to mind cattle on a property in what is now known as the Snowy Mountains. Squatters were claiming land and sending an overseer with cattle to squat on it. Queensland at that time was a new frontier also. If this was the case could he still have been under the same master. Lyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Thompson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:19 PM Subject: [PJ] James Mudie > > Hello Elizabeth > Thanks for the reply. Yes, there are many possibilities but no evidence > about unsatisfactory service, or a crime, or a road gang. Rather to the > contrary, he served the following 39 years with the one family without any > adverse report and he seems to have been well respected. I think it highly > likely that he was transferred between masters unofficially, which I > understand frequently occurred, or if there was an official record it has > been lost. > A lot of convicts who worked for Mudie were either witnesses or named by > others at the Castle Forbes trial and the subsequent inquiry, but my > convict was not named. Mudie and his partner Lanarch seem to have each had > about 20 convicts. There are rather less than that number named, so it is > possible that my convict worked at Castle Forbes. I think I have explored > all I can at that end, so I am hoping that something comes to light at the > Wilkinson end. > Cheers > Ken > >

Hello Elizabeth Thanks for the reply. Yes, there are many possibilities but no evidence about unsatisfactory service, or a crime, or a road gang. Rather to the contrary, he served the following 39 years with the one family without any adverse report and he seems to have been well respected. I think it highly likely that he was transferred between masters unofficially, which I understand frequently occurred, or if there was an official record it has been lost. A lot of convicts who worked for Mudie were either witnesses or named by others at the Castle Forbes trial and the subsequent inquiry, but my convict was not named. Mudie and his partner Lanarch seem to have each had about 20 convicts. There are rather less than that number named, so it is possible that my convict worked at Castle Forbes. I think I have explored all I can at that end, so I am hoping that something comes to light at the Wilkinson end. Cheers Ken [email protected] Given you have four years between records there could have been any number of scenarios many of which are not documented. After initial assignment he may have proved to be unsatisfactory and returned to Government as such, sent for 6 months to a road party then re assigned. Accept for one or two months in 1830 the road party returns do not exist. Could have absconded or committed a crime of some sort and was sent to an iron gang then a road party then re assigned. Again very few records survive. Convicts were swapped but usually there is some documentation re letters to the government. A lot has been written about Mudie, have you checked that. I know I had to read it for a uni assignment some 10 years ago but can't remember if it said anything about individual convicts assigned to Mudie. Elizabeth Roberts

Given you have four years between records there could have been any number of scenarios many of which are not documented. After initial assignment he may have proved to be unsatisfactory and returned to Government as such, sent for 6 months to a road party then re assigned. Accept for one or two months in 1830 the road party returns do not exist. Could have absconded or committed a crime of some sort and was sent to an iron gang then a road party then re assigned. Again very few records survive. Convicts were swapped but usually there is some documentation re letters to the government. A lot has been written about Mudie, have you checked that. I know I had to read it for a uni assignment some 10 years ago but can't remember if it said anything about individual convicts assigned to Mudie. Elizabeth Roberts -----Original Message----- From: Ken Thompson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011 6:22 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [PJ] James Mudie Hi Kath My convict was originally assigned in 1829 to W Wilkinson at Georges River. His next record is 1833 when he is at the Hunter. I have been trying to find out how he got there. After investigating several other possibilities I now think Mudie may have transferred him. This supposition would be more plausible if there is evidence of Mudie being associated with Georges River, or settlers who lived there. Hence my question. Cheers Ken From: "Kath Connors" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PJ] James Mudie What part of the Georges River and year are you interested in Ken, Kath

Hi Kath Thanks for the offer. This is my note on the Wilkinson connection. "James was assigned to W Wilkinson at Georges River, Sydney. Wilkinson's property was on the north side of what is now Canterbury Road, south east of Punchbowl. The area was 60 acres. William Wilkinson was a convict who was convicted in Brecon, in Wales, for seven years. He arrived on the Batavia in October 1817. Another William Wilkinson was convicted in York for seven years. He arrived on the Speke in December 1820. One of these was the landholder at Georges River". I would be interested to know which W Wilkinson had the 60 acre property and if there was any reason why he should let an assigned convict go to someone else. The current Wilkinsons might be able to throw some light on this question if they have researched their family history. Regards Ken From: Kath Connors To: 'Ken Thompson' Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 4:01 PM Subject: RE: James Mudie Hi Ken, I grew up on the Georges River at Georges Hall via Bankstown 80 years ago and grew up with a Wilkinson family, I will contact my brother and ask him what re remembers for you. Kath

Hi Kath My convict was originally assigned in 1829 to W Wilkinson at Georges River. His next record is 1833 when he is at the Hunter. I have been trying to find out how he got there. After investigating several other possibilities I now think Mudie may have transferred him. This supposition would be more plausible if there is evidence of Mudie being associated with Georges River, or settlers who lived there. Hence my question. Cheers Ken From: "Kath Connors" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PJ] James Mudie What part of the Georges River and year are you interested in Ken, Kath

What part of the Georges River and year are you interested in Ken, Kath -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Thompson Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011 8:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [PJ] James Mudie Someone told me that James Mudie of Castle Forbes fame, or infamy, had friends or some other connection with Georges River, but I have lost the reference. Can my correspondent or anyone else please help ? Ken Thompson ---------------------- To send a message to the Port Jackson Convicts List, send an email to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message