Hi Rob, The 1837 General Return of Convicts (book version) is not a 1837 General Muster. Part of the Introduction states: "It is not a product of a muster in the usually accepted sense. It is the result of a wholly clerical reconstruction The vast majority of its entries are based on the 1836 Census" My comment - it does not include everyone who was a convict at that time - much as the 1828 NSW Census does not.. The 8 year rule was a bit more than that and the rules changed at times. At one time (Gov. Brisbane ) a Lifer had to have served no more than 3 masters over 8 years. He should not have been convicted of any crime of misdemeanour in the colony and had to be honest, sober and of asn industrious character. Given the above, he also had to obtain approval from the resident Magistrate. By 1827 (Governor Darling) the rules changed again and a Lifer had to have served no more than one Master over 8 years OR no more than two Masters over 10 years OR no more than three Masters over 12 years..... and the rules were again changed in Governor Bourkes time. And given the rules at various times there were also other considerations whereby a convict could receive a TOL a lot earlier. I don't believe that his trade of Shoemaker was seen as a valuable asset (although useful) - although that is my opinion only Regards Lesley Uebel http://www.claimaconvict.net/index.html CLAIM A CONVICT email: [email protected] On 1/07/2011 11:34 AM, Rob Coughlan wrote: > Hi Lesley > I was just following up on my recent advices. The fact that Michael > Coughlan is not listed in the 1837 return seems strange. He received his > ticket of leave that year for Maitland Police District. This was > transferred to Patrick's Plains in 1839 just prior to his marriage to Ann > Kershaw. I have always thought it strange he received his ToL in 1837. He > was firstly sentenced to transportation for life. Given the 8 year rule > that would make him eligible for his ToL in 1836. However I would have > thought that given he had absconded in 1834 and that he was on the periphery > of a theft case in Sydney when he was captured, that this would count as > somewhat bad behaviour given the thinking of the time. Do you think it was > because he was a mechanic and his labour was I demand in the private sector > that he received his ticket? The opposite to this line of thinking would be > the government or a landowner would see his trade of shoemaker as a valuable > asset and delay his ticket, which I believe was not unknown. But again what > seems strange is that he was not gobbled up by the system even earlier for > just this same reason. It all appears a bit of a mystery to me. And again > he is not on the convict muster? Could he have absented himself? And if so > surely they would have caught up with him in 1839 when his ticket was > transferred and he applied to marry. Any comments? Thanks, Rob Coughlan > > -----Original Message-----

Thanks Lesley for that. Do you think it a reasonable assumption then that it was just his time as they say. By the way I have done a little more digging on TROVE and I believe this Michael Coughlan to be living in Singleton or at least Patrick's Plains by 1838 and carrying on his trade as a shoemaker. This would tie together a number of loose threads I believe. I have yet to track down the records from Maitland Gaol after he was caught for absconding but this is in progress. Thank you very much for all your help in this matter as the pieces as far as they are currently available are all falling into place. Like joan Ford, I am having trouble tying down his parents, DoB or place of birth but this is another story. Thanks again so much, Rob. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lesley Uebel Sent: Friday, 1 July 2011 10:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PJ] musters Hi Rob, The 1837 General Return of Convicts (book version) is not a 1837 General Muster. Part of the Introduction states: "It is not a product of a muster in the usually accepted sense. It is the result of a wholly clerical reconstruction The vast majority of its entries are based on the 1836 Census" My comment - it does not include everyone who was a convict at that time - much as the 1828 NSW Census does not.. The 8 year rule was a bit more than that and the rules changed at times. At one time (Gov. Brisbane ) a Lifer had to have served no more than 3 masters over 8 years. He should not have been convicted of any crime of misdemeanour in the colony and had to be honest, sober and of asn industrious character. Given the above, he also had to obtain approval from the resident Magistrate. By 1827 (Governor Darling) the rules changed again and a Lifer had to have served no more than one Master over 8 years OR no more than two Masters over 10 years OR no more than three Masters over 12 years..... and the rules were again changed in Governor Bourkes time. And given the rules at various times there were also other considerations whereby a convict could receive a TOL a lot earlier. I don't believe that his trade of Shoemaker was seen as a valuable asset (although useful) - although that is my opinion only Regards Lesley Uebel http://www.claimaconvict.net/index.html CLAIM A CONVICT email: [email protected] On 1/07/2011 11:34 AM, Rob Coughlan wrote: > Hi Lesley > I was just following up on my recent advices. The fact that Michael > Coughlan is not listed in the 1837 return seems strange. He received his > ticket of leave that year for Maitland Police District. This was > transferred to Patrick's Plains in 1839 just prior to his marriage to Ann > Kershaw. I have always thought it strange he received his ToL in 1837. He > was firstly sentenced to transportation for life. Given the 8 year rule > that would make him eligible for his ToL in 1836. However I would have > thought that given he had absconded in 1834 and that he was on the periphery > of a theft case in Sydney when he was captured, that this would count as > somewhat bad behaviour given the thinking of the time. Do you think it was > because he was a mechanic and his labour was I demand in the private sector > that he received his ticket? The opposite to this line of thinking would be > the government or a landowner would see his trade of shoemaker as a valuable > asset and delay his ticket, which I believe was not unknown. But again what > seems strange is that he was not gobbled up by the system even earlier for > just this same reason. It all appears a bit of a mystery to me. And again > he is not on the convict muster? Could he have absented himself? And if so > surely they would have caught up with him in 1839 when his ticket was > transferred and he applied to marry. Any comments? Thanks, Rob Coughlan > > -----Original Message----- ---------------------- 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