See below for relevant background - I think that there is a great advantage in check all available sources. Where they disagree, one ought be circumspect in preferring one over another: which is more likely to be correct ? Which involves less transcriptions, with the attendant possibility of a simple error ? That said, my understanding is that there is a difference between becoming free by servitude (or other means), on the one hand; and being issued with a Certificate of Freedom, on the other. If an emancipated convict remained in the colony, he might not bother asking for his CF. If, however, he wished to travel, it may be advantageous to have proof of his status. I have seen newspaper notices referring to "Certificates of Freedom awaiting collection at the Convict office". I am aware of one Scottish political prisoner, Robert GRAY ("Speke" to NSW 1820; unknown ship to VDL soon after), who was pardonned in Britain. He read of it in an English newspaper, months later. Two years later, he was complaining that the authorities in Hobart wouldn't give him his CF: they said it was the responsibility of the NSW authorities. I don't when, if ever, he got his paperwork. I acknowledge that prisoners who were pardonned, conditionally, absolutely, or otherwise, were probably treated a little differently from time-expired convicts. So, unlikely as it may seem, the possibility exists that the records you cite are not in error. Your man may have completed his sentence, but a gap of several years occurred before his CF was issued. I'd be looking for an explanation of that gap: therein might lie a story of its own. Peter THOMAS Darwin, AUSTRALIA <pmthomas@bigpond.com> -----Original Message----- From: Steve Pearsall [mailto:spearsal@tassie.net.au] Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2005 8:28 AM To: AUS-TAS-CONVICTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TAS-CON] ToL in Newspapers ... We must remember that it was possible for the clerks in the convict department to make errors. I have seen one convict with a seven year sentence having no convictions in VDL and it being noted on his convict record that he received his Certificate of Freedom 14 years after his arrival. His Certifiate of Freedom was, however, Gazetted seven years after his arrival on the date that he should have become free - meaning the convict clerks in the Convict Department had made an error and picked it up seven years later when recording the freedom of those convicts arriving on the same ship with a 14 year sentence. ... I suppose what I am trying to say is that even though you are looking at a primary document, it is still possible for the contents to be incorrect. Regards, Steve Pearsall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Arnold" <jeffarnold@optushome.com.au> To: <AUS-TAS-CONVICTS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: [TAS-CON] ToL in Newspapers ...

Hello Peter, Steve & others Re below: I have often seen on conduct records the notation, for example: Cert Feby 23 1863 tu This indicates that the convict TOOK UP their Certificate of Freedom on 23 February 1863, even thought it may have been due earlier. This notation of tu could also apply for Conditional Pardons, as in the case of my great great grandmother, who took up her Conditional Pardon about 10 years after it was due - before this date, I guess it was not necessary for her to have it. Regards Trudy Dr Trudy Cowley List Administrator TAS Convicts Rootsweb List tcowley@bigpond.net.au AUS-TAS-CONVICTS-L@rootsweb.com -----Original Message----- From: Peter Thomas [mailto:pmthomas@bigpond.com] Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 6:54 AM To: AUS-TAS-CONVICTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [TAS-CON] Freedom records See below for relevant background - I think that there is a great advantage in check all available sources. Where they disagree, one ought be circumspect in preferring one over another: which is more likely to be correct ? Which involves less transcriptions, with the attendant possibility of a simple error ? That said, my understanding is that there is a difference between becoming free by servitude (or other means), on the one hand; and being issued with a Certificate of Freedom, on the other. If an emancipated convict remained in the colony, he might not bother asking for his CF. If, however, he wished to travel, it may be advantageous to have proof of his status. I have seen newspaper notices referring to "Certificates of Freedom awaiting collection at the Convict office". I am aware of one Scottish political prisoner, Robert GRAY ("Speke" to NSW 1820; unknown ship to VDL soon after), who was pardonned in Britain. He read of it in an English newspaper, months later. Two years later, he was complaining that the authorities in Hobart wouldn't give him his CF: they said it was the responsibility of the NSW authorities. I don't when, if ever, he got his paperwork. I acknowledge that prisoners who were pardonned, conditionally, absolutely, or otherwise, were probably treated a little differently from time-expired convicts. So, unlikely as it may seem, the possibility exists that the records you cite are not in error. Your man may have completed his sentence, but a gap of several years occurred before his CF was issued. I'd be looking for an explanation of that gap: therein might lie a story of its own. Peter THOMAS Darwin, AUSTRALIA <pmthomas@bigpond.com> -----Original Message----- From: Steve Pearsall [mailto:spearsal@tassie.net.au] Sent: Sunday, 11 December 2005 8:28 AM To: AUS-TAS-CONVICTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TAS-CON] ToL in Newspapers ... We must remember that it was possible for the clerks in the convict department to make errors. I have seen one convict with a seven year sentence having no convictions in VDL and it being noted on his convict record that he received his Certificate of Freedom 14 years after his arrival. His Certifiate of Freedom was, however, Gazetted seven years after his arrival on the date that he should have become free - meaning the convict clerks in the Convict Department had made an error and picked it up seven years later when recording the freedom of those convicts arriving on the same ship with a 14 year sentence. ... I suppose what I am trying to say is that even though you are looking at a primary document, it is still possible for the contents to be incorrect. Regards, Steve Pearsall