Dear Listers, I contributed some messages re transportation and sentences to this list some weeks ago, which started a small thread. In a long overdue, (as you will see by the original dates on the emails) cleaning out of my email inbox, I found I had not deleted *all* of them on the subject. I am forwarding those that I feel may be of some interest to the list, which were posted to various Australian lists - in the past few months - as I find them. This particular one is quite long, because it includes both the original email and the answer. Of course, the original question should be read first to understand the context of the answer. Hope you find them interesting, Wynnette, in Queensland, Australia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Edmunds" <Wattle@iprimus.com.au> To: <AUS-Tasmania-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [AUS-Tas] Transportation > Hi, > It is really important to view sentences according to the laws which > prevailed at the time. What may seem petty by today's standard were still > serious crimes prior to consolidation in 1832 - 1837, which removed hundreds > of archaic crimes from the statutes and the death sentence for same. > Although this was substituted by transportation. > > Following is an excerpt from a bio I'm writing: > "Crime and punishment > Amongst the two hundred and twenty offences subject to death were: private > stealing (picking pockets) of more than one shilling, shoplifting goods of > more than five shillings in value, stealing articles worth more than two > pounds in any house or on the river, stealing cattle, horses or sheep, > cutting down trees in an avenue or garden, helping another to steal goods, > treason and petty treason, counterfeiting gold and silver coin, stealing an > heiress, pulling down houses or churches, sending threatening letters, deer > stealing, second offence, returning from transportation. Theft or Burglary > was treated more harshly if it was done during the hours of darkness. > Contrast these with examples, which were not punishable by death or > transportation and were considered misdemeanours: perjury, fraud, conspiracy > to defraud, stealing growing cabbages or turnips, deer or dogs, robbing > orchards, stealing wood or trees, stealing fire works or throwing them > around the streets, robbing customs and excise, setting fire to a house to > defraud insurance, conspiring to raise wages. It is true to say that a crime > against property was dealt with more severely than a crime against the > person. Until 1803 attempted murder was treated as a misdemeanour, unless > the injured party was maimed. It wasn't until the latter part of the 19th > century that children were treated differently than adults. In 1833 for > example a child of nine was sentenced to death for stealing goods worth two > pence. He was held in the condemned cells at Newgate and was reprieved, but > only just in time! > > Governments were more concerned about the deterrent nature of the punishment > than any reformatory effect. And this is the key to understanding the > severity of punishments in the British penal codes certainly until the > latter part of the nineteenth century. > > Gradually the public turned against capital punishment for all but the most > serious crimes, and by about 1810 the practice was hanging for murder only. > Nevertheless, it wasn't until 1861 when the Consolidation Statutes were > passed that the death penalty was retained only for murder, treason, piracy > with violence and setting fire to dockyards and arsenals. In the meantime > sentences of seven, fourteen years and life became the norm whether for > prison or transportation. This had the effect of crowding more prisoners in > already overcrowded goals and hulks. It wasn't until 1821 that the first > penitentiary was completed - Millbank Penitentiary - which housed 1000 > prisoners. > > By the latter half of the eighteenth century transportation had become an > accepted alternative, certainly an economic solution, since it removed the > offenders from the kingdom. It was a way of emptying overcrowded prisons > and hulks; it was also a means of supplying cheap labour to support > colonization. Although more humane, it was still cruel because it separated > the convicted person from their family, and wrenched mothers and fathers > from their spouses and children. If a father was transported it meant that > his wife and children had to rely on charity to survive, and many didn't! > With relatively few exceptions it was exile for life. Apart from the > physical punishment and dislocation of families, there was the mental > anguish and hopelessness of never being able to return home. > > It may come as a surprise to find that transporting British people started > in the reign of Elizabeth 1 and continued until 1875. From 1610 until the > start of the American War of Independence in 1776, just over 40,000 convicts > were transported to Virginia and Maryland. Between 1842 and 1875 some 9000 > were dispatched to Gibraltar to build a fortress, although they were able to > return to Britain after completion of their sentence. The British used > native convicts of their colonies to provide cheap labour to build the > infrastructure in various settlements. These included Sumatra 4-6000 and > 15,000 to the Straits Settlements (Singapore, Penang and Malacca). The > British weren't alone in this policy. France shipped 24,000 to New > Caledonia from 1852 -1879, and about 14, 000 to French Guyana between > 1855-1911. Russia transported internally and externally over 2,000,000, the > principal destination being Siberia. " > Copyright > > Hope this is of interest. > > Ray > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karen Groeneveld" <groeneve@iimetro.com.au> > To: <AUS-Tasmania-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:49 PM > Subject: [AUS-Tas] Transportation > > > > Hi everyone > > > > I've been enjoying this discussion. > > > > I remember reading some submissions (was it on the National Archives of > > Ireland website??) from family members in defence of their convicted. > There > > seem to be quite a few in the later years of transportion which suggest > that > > desperate people committed crimes deliberately to be transported - I > > remember reading some cases where the judge ordered them a free passage > > (without conviction) once it became clear that their crimes had been > > committed purely with the intention of being transported out of the hell > > that must have been famine affected Ireland and rural England. I > certainly > > wonder if one of mine wasn't up to the same tricks - Jacob was convicted > at > > 15 of stealing a jacket after a previous conviction a year earlier of > > stealing lead pipe off a building - his brother had been transported 12 mo > > earlier. Jacob went on to become a model citizen in Tas - farming and > > acquiring land (something he could never have hoped to do in his native > > England). Perhaps he was just a Lad! > > > > Almost all of mine where single when they came, so probably had everything > > to gain. Notably, the one who had left family behind committed suicide > many > > years later - so you have to wonder! > > > > As for whether their sentences would stand up today? Based on my four, I > > don't think so somehow: > > 10 yrs for stealing a jacket (previous conviction of stealing lead pipe > for > > which he was whipped and received 3 mo hard labour, at age 14) > > 7 yrs for stealing a sheep (no previous con) > > 10 yrs for killing a sheep (previous con, stealing money) > > 10 yrs for stealing a coat and shawl (previous con). > > > > Cheers > > > > Karen Groeneveld > > in cold Queanbeyan (lots of snow on the hills today) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 11/21/05