AUS-Tasmania-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-Tasmania > 2006-01 > 1136740117


From: "Ian Westergaard" <>
Subject: Re: [AUS-Tas] Re: Query re previously married brides/musters
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:08:37 +1300
References: <23772163.1136708761999.JavaMail.root@web07ps>


Hi Garry

Thanks for the very interesting dissertation.

Two comments I would make.

> The convict generally wouldn't have cared less
> who captained the ship, although I suppose he
> would have been on it long enough to at least
> know his name.

It is very probable that the convict (or steerage passenger) did not know or
recall the captain's name. Firstly he would have little interest in
remembering even if he was told. Secondly it is very likely that he never
heard it spoken. Where there was only one of a certain rank or function on a
vessel that person was invariably addressed or spoken about by their rank or
function. i.e. it was "Captain" or "the captain" "bosun" or "the bosun" etc.
Mates would be "mister Smith" because there were two or more and seamen
would be "Smith" or some derogatory epithet or nickname.

> Nevertheless, the musters provide a substantial
> record in tracking the population now (and indeed
> they most probably did then - otherwise why would
> they have persisted for so long in taking them?)

Old time civil servants (and probably modern ones still) worked to a
"system" and "the system" could only be changed by some very strong minded
superior - in this case probably the Colonial Secretary or the Governor.
Often those with the power to change "the system" did not have the interest
or incentive to do so. So the fact that the musters may have passed their
use by date would be irrelevant until someone with the necessary authority
gave the matter their attention and that would probably only happen when
there were budget constraints. It was often much easier to employ additional
civil servants to do new tasks than it was to abolish the old redundant
tasks and retrain the existing staff - Parkinson's law.

Ian Westergaard
In Cloudy & Mild Central Otago
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: "Garry Wilson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: [AUS-Tas] Re: Query re previously married brides/musters


> Ray and other listers
>
> Just a couple of observations and the first is that you have to take each
document and class of documents in context. What applied to say marriages
doesn't necessarily translate to musters. And what applied to one muster
did not necessarily apply to another etc. Nevertheless, convict women were
generally recorded under their convict name, at least in the first few
decades. Sometimes the name of the transport was included against a convict
on marriage and also sometimes on death. This is not included in the index
and therefore always makes it worthwhile to check the original document.
>
> Ray asked me to comment on why the name of the ship's captain was
important in the muster. His assessment is largely correct in that it often
differentiated ships of the same name or different voyages of the same
vessel. However, this was not always so, because the same captain often
made more than one voyage in the same vessel.
>
> But the reasoning behind what Ray says, in so far as he kind of suggests
that it was the convict who came with the identifying info, points up a
fundamental misconception that I think we all have when we first approach
documents like the musters. Somehow we seem determined to have the view
that the person who was mustered supplied the information. However, they
didn't fill in a form or answer a questionnaire or anything like that.
Sure they came with some identification or described themselves adequately,
but it was the muster master who caused the information to be recorded.
>
> I have now looked in detail at enough musters to see an obvious
consistency (there are of course exceptions LOL) but enough consistency to
state quite categorically that the sort of information such as sentence,
place of conviction, ship, captain's name etc came from a record already
kept and was perhaps more likely to have been entered into the muster lists
when they were tidied up back in the office. In fact, not surprisingly, the
information including spelling of the person's name often finds basis in the
convict shipping indent. Errors of the type which are obviously clerical
errors, rather than wrong info from the person being mustered, however do
abound.
>
> And I'm sure there would have been a few mischievous convicts who would
have played with the system (or perhaps were not too bright or sufficiently
educated), but don't forget there were penalties for not turning up and not
bringing tickets of leave etc, so it was probably more trouble than it was
worth not to go along with the system. Basically it was a penal colony and
the authorities were supposed to know who you were. If your record was
correct at least you would get off at the appropriate time if you see my
point. Mess up your record and you might find you had 14 years instead of 7
!
>
> I have only seen one muster document (1816 I think it is from memory) that
most certainly was an "original" list taken on the day. It was indeed like
a pack-a-pooh ticket in different handwritings and you could see where the
main clerk had taken his lunch break or gone to the toilet and someone else
took over. The extant muster documents we have in every other case are
neatly written up lists (or returns) most certainly made after the event and
sometimes for specific purposes (as in 1811)
>
> So back to muster day, think of it as something like going to get your
name marked off the electoral roll on polling day. The clerk already has
your details, you only need to supply enough info to convince him that you
are that person. So in the case of the musters, if you were a convict, all
you had to give was your name and your ship (like name and address now) and
then the clerk would sort it out and add the other information. He would
only have needed to enquire further if he had some problem identifying the
convict from the lists he already had. The convict generally wouldn't have
cared less who captained the ship, although I suppose he would have been on
it long enough to at least know his name.
>
> Although there are obvious consistencies as I said, there of course always
anomalies, but as I said above, I suspect these come more from the clerk
making clerical errors later in writing up the final lists rather than the
the convict himself being confused or giving misleading info. I wouldn't
mind a penny for every Fame that gets mixed up with Fanny or Earl Cornwallis
with Marquis Cornwallis or Marquis of Wellington with Lord Wellington or
Royal Admiral with Admiral Gambier. Another favourite is Atlas and
Hercules (they both held up the world you see!). And then Atlas and
Atlantic cause the odd problem or two. But if you get my point, it was a
problem for the clerk not the convict.
>
> So the muster was a bit more like being marked off a roll than we might at
first think, although of course persons were required to give some info as
well, as in the case of those who had land and stock (but of course these
weren't convicts). Also women (and sometimes men) were required to give
details of children in some musters and so on. I guess the point I'm making
is that the muster takers and authorities weren't relying on what the
convict might have told them about their sentence or other details which
should been readily apparent to the authorities from the records they
already had.
>
> But to be sure, there were problems, and the CON13 series which is
basically the shipping indents, is otherwise littered with little notes and
memorandums sorting out (sometimes successfully, sometimes not!!) the
problems that surrounded the identification and hence individual records of
some convicts.
>
> Don't forget that as more and more convicts started to go directly to VDL
rather than come via PJ (sometimes years later) the problems became less
significant and also record keeping (especially under Gov Arthur) also
generally improved.
>
> Nevertheless, the musters provide a substantial record in tracking the
population now (and indeed they most probably did then - otherwise why would
they have persisted for so long in taking them?)
>
> Hope that sheds some further light on the subject.
>
> Regards
>
> Garry
>
>
> ---- Ray Edmunds <> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As Garry said they were identified by their convicted name, but perhaps
> > more importantly by the place and date of trial, name of ship and
captain's
> > name. If you look at the musters you'll generally find they required
these
> > latter details for positive identification, especially of those with the
> > same name, to check against convict lists on that ship/voyage. I've
never
> > been quite sure why the captain/master's name was required, except maybe
to
> > distinguish between transports which made more than one voyage, yet the
same
> > captain often did multiple voyages. Perhaps Garry can throw some light
on
> > why the captain's name? I think this applied more to the earlier years.
> > Later there was a fairly detailed description of the convict but the
ship
> > and voyage remained an important identifier, both for them and us today.
> > The Irish passenger/convict lists were either non existent or came very
late
> > and not with the ship. I had an Irish lady whose details didn't come
with
> > the ship and arrived a considerable time later.
> > All very fascinating.
> > Regards.
> >
> > RayE

This thread: