Phil White <pwgrandmapa@comcast.net> writes > In my search for the Osborne family in Suffolk I also recvd some >data about a member of the family transported to Tasmania after >breaking and entering a house and stealing two things of minimum value, >2 pearl earings and a silver coin Result 10 years transportation. >Shows very little concern for less fortunate people, and almost a >vicious attitude. ---------- Hi , I think you've made the mistake of looking at the past through modern spectacles. Back then it was not a theft of "minimum value", as pearls were not the common jewellery items that we know today. They were not cultured until the early C20th, instead they were a treasured find, a rare natural "gem". Pearls were more valued than diamonds. A pair of pearl earrings was extravagant - a pearl necklace was the domain of the fabulously wealthy. I suspect they were the sort of high-value contraband that a jewellery thief couldn't have just pawned back then - he would need underworld connections to find a 'fence' who could pass them on to a buyer. So maybe he got off lightly with transportation for "just 10 years" ! Best regards, -- Colin Fenn London

Hi Colin & Phil You beat me to it re looking at the past through todays eyes Perhaps also reflected by Phils liberal thoughts :-) In the period in question, the prisons were overflowing and things were getting out of hand, coupled with the need for labour in the colonies, so an obvious solution was to transport the prisoners to supply a source of labour at the same time as lowering the prison population It does not surprise me in the slightest that it was thought to be a good solution at the time, I also rather suspect that many sentences were passed on people who may have been innocent (no legal aid or clever barristers for them) However, theft is theft and you can't break the law "a bit" , you either do or you don't, of course the motivation behind the crime then was rather more desperate than perhaps today, no social services or support agencies but then as now there were career criminals So whether it was a silk handkerchief or pearls, its still breaking the law It could have been worse, uttering a forged note could result in hanging Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Hi , > I think you've made the mistake of looking at the past through modern > spectacles. > > Back then it was not a theft of "minimum value", as pearls were not the > common jewellery items that we know today. They were not cultured until > the early C20th, instead they were a treasured find, a rare natural > "gem". Pearls were more valued than diamonds. A pair of pearl earrings > was extravagant - a pearl necklace was the domain of the fabulously > wealthy. > > I suspect they were the sort of high-value contraband that a jewellery > thief couldn't have just pawned back then - he would need underworld > connections to find a 'fence' who could pass them on to a buyer. > So maybe he got off lightly with transportation for "just 10 years" ! > > Best regards, > -- > Colin Fenn > London