Join the Army and See the World - the life of Hugh MacKay

Hugh MacKay (c1756 – 1840) was my fifth great grandfather on my maternal grandfather's side. He was a weaver on a heavily overpopulated Isle in the Hebrides, yet, because he joined up to fight Napolean, he ended up travelling not only to Europe but also into the Middle East. This is a quick, and inadequate rundown of his life.

Hugh MacKay (c1756 – 1840)

Wife: Ann MacDonald (c1765-1802)

Children:

Catharine (1785-?)

Donald (1787-?)

William (1787- ?)

George (1790-?)

Lachlan (1793-1861) (guess which one is my ancestor)

Francissa (1795-?)

John (1798-?)

Hugh MacKay was born on the Isle of Tiree, Argyll, Scotland. The Isle of Tiree Community website describes Tiree thus:

“One of the Inner Hebrides, Tiree is twenty-two miles west of the nearest point on the Scottish mainland, Ardnamurchan. ...Britain’s twentieth largest island, it is just over ten miles at its longest, five miles at its widest, and a little over half a mile at its narrowest.

A walk of forty six miles would take you around its coastline, much of it along white beaches of shell sand. Tiree is divided into 286 crofts and five farms although there are today probably fewer than a hundred active crofters. The land is split into thirty one crofting townships, each controlled by a grazing committee. It is the most fertile of the Hebrides...

The weather dominates life on Tiree in a way it often fails to do on the mainland. Weather reports from the island are familiar to listeners to the BBC’s Shipping Forecast and Reports from Coastal Stations.

Like the rest of Scotland’s west coast, the island is bathed by the warm Gulf Stream. The surrounding seas keep the island’s climate mild in winter and cool in summer. Sea temperatures are at their lowest in March, and at their highest in September.

The prevailing south-westerly winds bring a succession of weather systems from the Atlantic... There are gales here on average thirty four days a year.”¹

Tiree is without woodland, and has only three sizeable hills.

Tiree, withing Argyll and Bute, from Wikipedia

Finding birth records for Hugh has proved problematic, although pursuit continues. His father, if Hugh followed tradition, would have been Donald (as this is the name of his eldest son – the tradition was to name the eldest son for the paternal grandfather). However, this is presently conjecture. Little has been uncovered of Hugh until the birth of his first child, and even then the details are sketchy.

In 1785 the birth of Catharine is recorded in the Parish Records of Cornaig, Coll to Hugh MacKay and Anne MacDonald². They were already married as the child was not listed as “begot through fornication”. Luckily, the custom in Scotland was to record the mother's maiden name. No marriage records for Hugh and Ann have yet been uncovered.

All the subsequent Mackay children were born on Coll, although in differing Parishes (Cornaig, Sodistal), with the possible exception of Lachlan (this will be explained later), whose birth does not appear in the Old Parish Records (OPR).

Coll, the island directly north-east of Tiree on the map above, is 20.9km long by 4.8km wide and these days has a population of about 200. It has sandy beaches and one notable “mountain”, Ben Hogh in the south west of the island which rises to a height of 104m³. Coll's official website boasts a list of things the island does not have, including “nowhere to go whilst it rains.”⁴

Coll's population has been much higher. There were 938 residents in 1776, and over one thousand by the early nineteenth century, eventually rising to about 1500. Added to the human population was all the accompanying lifestock. There were cows, the lucky families having one per household for milk, and sheep, with many on the island listing their occupation as weaver. Hugh McKay was among these.

Clabbach, Coll, from www.visitcoll.co.uk

A typical Coll house was a small affair, one or two rooms, with a thatched roof held down by a complex web of ropes weighted with stones. Where windows existed they were small. Light came into the first room through the door and any windows. The external walls were about six feet thick, made of two layers of stone with a gap between filled with sand and peat. The roof came only to the gap and grass and food plants were grown in the fill. There was no chimney and the sooty thatch, when replaced, was ploughed into the fields as fertiliser. This all doesn't sound too bad. Somewhere to live, well-insulated for the winter, extra growing space. However, only part of this house was for the human occupants. Half to two-thirds was dedicated to the livestock, which would have to live indoors in the colder months, and whose dung would be removed each spring by breaking a hole in the wall and shovelling the dung out onto waiting carts. If you were very poor, there was no dividing wall between your family and your animals, which were tethered to prevent incursions into the living quarters.

In 1793, the call went out for men to fight Napoleon. Hugh was among the first on Coll signed up to the 79^th Regiment of Foot (Cameronian Volunteers). The Regiment was established on August 17, 1793 at Fort William from among the members of the Clan Cameron by Sir Allan Cameron of Erracht. A new tartan was devised, based on a combination of the MacDonald and Cameron tartans.

Initially Hugh and his comrades were stationed on Malta. There is a record of a Lachlan McKay being born there in 1793, implying that the whole family went along too, although currently that Lachlan cannot be indisputibly linked to Hugh. Families travelling with soldiers was not uncommon at the time, so it is possible. In 1794 the Regiment was sent to the Netherlands. The campaign went badly and the men were evacuated back to Great Britain, the 79^th foot listed for disbandment. However, this did not happen and the Regiment was instead posted in 1795 to the West Indies. Hugh, along with a number of other men, was sent home during this time and his last two children, Francissa and John, were born. In 1799 the men were recalled and joined their Regiment, bound for Holland

The 79^th Foot saw active service at Egmont-op-Zee in October and in 1800 joined an unsuccessful assault at Ferrol on the Spanish coast. From there, they went to Egypt and were part of the force that eventually saw the surrender of the French at Cairo. As a result a sphinx with the word EGYPT over it was added to the Regiment's colours and badges⁵

The next few years were spent in Minorca, where Anne died. George, Donald, William and Lachlan were already serving in the army as soldiers, Lachlan having been signed up at the age of six as a drummer boy, but the death must have come as a blow to the family The assumption currently is that Catharine bore the bulk of the care for Francissa and John.

In 1804 the 79^th Foot was made part of the British Army, and it is from this point that the Chelsea Records commence. A second battalion was formed as a draft-finding unit and Hugh served in this Battalion from 20^th Sept 1804 to 24 December, 1807, whereafter he was transferred to the 1^st Battalion. The 1st Battalion had, during 1807, served in Denmark. Hugh joined them on their return to England.

“In 1808 the 79th Foot moved to Portugal, moving to Spain in the following year and participating in several major battles of the Peninsular War:

* Corunna in 1809,

* Busaco and the defence of Cadiz in 1810,

* Fuentes d'Onor in 1811,

* The Battle of Salamanca, the occupation of Madrid and the siege of Burgos in 1812,

* the Battles of the Pyrenees, Nivelle, Nive in 1813

* The Battle of Toulouse in 1814

Following the abdication of Napoleon in 1814, the regiment moved to Cork, Ireland. However, with the return of Napoleon from exile, the 79th Foot travelled to Belgium in May, 1815. The regiment took part in the final battles of the Napoleonic Wars at Quatre Bras and Waterloo in June.”⁶ All soldiers who served at Waterloo received a special medal. The medal is silver, is 1½ inches across (37mm) and is attached to a ribbon by an iron ring. It was the first medal to have the recipient's name impressed around the edge by machine. Unfortunately many were lost as the iron ring rusted. Whether Hugh's medal still exists somewhere is at this point unknown.

front and reverse of Waterloo medal, from

http://www.kingsownmuseum.plus.com/medalsa.htm

Hugh MacKay, Private, was officially discharged on 16 October, 1815, although his service record gives the conclusion date of his service as 24 April, 1816 (the extra time a credit for serving at Waterloo and Quatre Bras). He was discharged on the grounds of “Infirmity through age” being at that time 59. Given that Quatre Bras and Waterloo alone accounted for 21 800 dead on the British side, Hugh did remarkably well to survive the entire war.

His discharge papers, held in the National Archives, London, give a physical description of Hugh. He is given as “fifty nine years of age, five feet, six inches in height, dark brown hair, grey eyes, dark complexion”, his trade listed as “weaver”. His place of residence is “Coll, Tobermory, Argyll”. Hugh signed the papers with a cross.

Following the war, his family scattered, while Hugh returned to Coll to quietly live out his days, a weaver who had travelled the world.

Nothing more is yet uncovered about Hugh, except his death date, 1840. However, this is not yet verified, and comes from an uncertain source. There are few death records for Coll or Tiree as burial was not considered a sacrament (John Knox wrote that death rites led to Popery, and Knox had the last say in Scotland). The search continues.

1http://www.isleoftiree.com/history.html

2Christening records OPR accessed through Scotland's People website. OPR frame no FRCH2V1P60

3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll

4http://www.visitcoll.co.uk/Coll.php?p=about

5"Historical Record of the 79th Regiment of Foot, or Cameron Highlanders" by Captain Robert Jameson, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1863, p.15

6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Foot

Banging Your Head On a Brick Wall CAN Work

Well, actually, I got lucky. Serendipity is a great thing.

I have been researching George and William Pearce for ongoing convict blogs, trying to work out where in Somerset they came from, and, while I haven't had much luck with them, I solved a puzzle for another ancestor.

Last week I was at Wyong Family History Group, using one of their Ancestry computers, checking through their Somerset records. Firstly there was the frustration of "I have specified Somerset, UK, and you keep giving me Somerset, US results. Aaaargh!" Ancestry can be really annorying that way. Then there was the frustration of only finding what I already have (I need to rethink the search parameters). But...

I came across parish records for Evercreech in Somerset. St Peter's, Evercreech has records going back into the 1500s. It even at one point had a priest who would give a potted family history or interesting family fact with each entry. Genealogical gold. Pity we can't retrospectively make that sort of thing compulsory. Oh, for a time machine.

St Peter's, Evercreech, photo from Wikipedia

Evercreech niggled at me. Someone in the family tree has a connection with it, but I had only brought George and William's details with me (I wasn't going to be there all day). When I got home, I did a search in my file and there it was - Sarah Alicia Shepherd and her sister, Elizabeth, christened in Evercreech. Sarah's father, William Shepherd, is one of my brick walls. There is a lot of information floating around about his wife, Sarah Ann Burgess (these are my third great grandparents on my maternal grandmother's side). She was born and baptised in Market Lavington, Wiltshire. I can go back another four generations from her on a couple of lines, and three on the other ones. There is a lot about her marriage to her second husband, John Jessop, and a fair bit about all her children. But for William, all I had was his death date (8 October 1857, in Burragorang Valley), a calculated birth year of 1811 and that he arrived in Australia with Sarah aboard the Hydaspes in 1852. They were accompanied by their daughters Sarah and Elizabeth. This is outlined in Owen Pearce's book, "Rabbit Hot, Rabbit Cold" (pp.613-614), but is also part of family lore. I remember being told this by my grandmother when I was about twelve years old. I have been looking for more on William for a number of years, but it has always been a bit half-hearted because I never had much luck (well, you can see that one going round and round).

I don't have an Ancestry subscription, and wouldn't be able to get back to WFHG for several days, so I got on to FreeREG. Admittedly it's only transcripts, and it is still a work in progress, but, hell, why not? For those who don't know, this site is run by the FreeBMD and FreeCEN people, but is England and Wales Parish Register transcriptions carried out by volunteers. You can search according to Parish and/or Country and by name, with the ability to put in date ranges. It is not the same as looking at images or indeed the real thing, but it is a great resource. Evercreech has been extensively transcribed, so I started by putting in my great great grandmother, Sarah Alicia Shepherd. Remember, I had her listed as baptised in Evercreech. Um, no. Nothing. Elizabeth? Also no. Uh oh. Plus there is the problem that I put them in early in my research, when a lot of the time I didn't put in citations. University education, citations should have been second nature. Hello. What happened there? Regardless of where I got that information, it's wrong. Or there is an error or omission in FreeREG (they warn about this themselves). Guess who forgot to select Soundex? Missing this vital option, I decided to enter their parents, William and Sarah Ann...

William Shepherd and Sarah Ann Burgess, married Evercreech 12 February 1849. Better yet, it gave the name of Sarah's father (which matched the documented information I have) and, joy of joys, William's father, whose name I had never known. The bride and groom were resident in Evercreech, the groom a widow. I hadn't known that before, and no one had ever mentioned it either, not Owen, not Nanna, no one.

I did a search in the Evercreech transcripts for other children potentially of William and found the baptism of William Shepperd on 23 June 1850, to William and Anne Shepperd and the burial of William Shepherd, aged three weeks, on 30 June 1850. That's a child I previously only knew as "a male who died as a child" (RHRC p.613). I wasn't sure if this was definitely that child, but now I don't have any doubts. Finally selecting the Soundex option found Elizabeth Ann Shepperd, baptised 16 April, 1849, and Sarah Alicia Sheppard, baptised 22 September 1852. How to feel stupid in one easy lesson.

Widened searches of Somerset threw up heaps of results through which I sifted. Nothing more for William and Sarah Anne or Anne, but lots of other Williams with other wives. I could rule out a few because of location. Time to get smart. And a lesson in how it pays to look at the original or at the very least at an image of the original.

Did you know that State Records NSW has digitised immigrant ship lists? You can't search by name, but you can search by ship. And you can search their immigrant database by name, which should give you a ship and a year (and a reel number). The ship lists are great. You look for your ship in the list (arranged by date) and then you get the full immigrant list for that ship. They are in alphabetical order by surname, so it isn't too bad finding someone, just be prepared to go page by page, as you would with a microfilm. They are all handwritten, recorded at the actual time, so sometimes it is fun working out what a word is, and it is complicated by accents and spelling, but that's half the fun. And the information you can get is worth a little bit of thinking time.

I have used the shipping lists a fair bit, and know that one of the things listed is native place. As I couldn't find Sarah Alicia and Elizabeth in FreeREG, I thought why not look at the Hydaspes list to see what it says about the girls. Oh dear. Yes, William and Sarah Shepherd, but both originating from Kent, and moreover, no children. The records for the immigrants are fairly meticulous, and children were ALWAYS listed, no matter how young. So, either my great great grandmother and her eleder sister were born in Australia rather than England, or this is the wrong Shepherds. Back to the immigrant database - the only William Shepherd to come out came on the Hydaspes. The database is a little annoying in that it doesn't have a Soundex option or similar. So I wrote down all the different spellings I could think of for Shepherd and then searched each individually. SHEPPERD (got that William Jnr's Evercreech records), SHEPERD, SHEPPARD, SHEPHARD, SHEPARD, SHEPPART, and so on. Luckily I had a date to stop - November 1853 when son William Henry was born at The Oaks, out near Camden, NSW. There were still a few results, however, under a number of spellings. Back to the ship lists to go through each one.

This sort of back and forth sifting does pay off. It IS worth the effort. Look who I found aboard the Bolton, arriving 23 July 1853:

Australia. "Online Microfilm of shipping lists." The Bolton. State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood. Digital images. NSW Government. State Records. www.records.nsw.gov.au : 2012

The birth place of wife, Anne, was the clincher, and there are Elizabeth and Sarah, down the bottom, with their ages corresponding to what I actually know from death certificates. Remember William was listed as a widow at his marriage to Sarah Ann? Those three older children must be from that first marriage. And all those lovely places of birth. But where the hell is Lamyert?

I don't know if you watch Time Team, the archeaology program. But Prof Phil Harding on that is from Somerset. So if you look for clips from the series, you'll hear the sort of accent William Shepherd had, which explains why his native place is written as "Lamyert" rather than the actual "Lamyatt".

Back to FreeREG. I found John, born to William and Caroline Shepherd, baptised 5 September, 1841 in Lamyatt. Albert Henry I found at Shepton Mallet, born 13 March, 1845 and baptised 27 April, 1845. Mary Jane I eventually tracked down being baptised in Pitcombe on 22 October 1843. These places are all fairly close together. No marriage for William and Caroline as yet, although FreeBMD has a possiblity in April 1840 in Wincanton. However, I did find Caroline's burial, 6 October 1848 in Pitcombe, Somerset. And here is where it gets interesting.

Caroline died early October, 1848. William and Sarah Ann were married 12 February, 1849, four months after Caroline died. William and Sarah Ann's first child, Elizabeth, was baptised on 16 April, 1849, six months after Caroline died. Oookay.

It's easy to see that there is more to do, and much more to look for. When I am back in WFHG, I'll look at the 1841 and 1851 Census records (I found William, Caroline and John in 1841 transcripts on FreeCEN). Then there are Ancestry and FindmyPast to check. When I finish this blog I'll have a look at FamilySearch. But, hey, there are enough bricks removed from William's wall that I can see where to look and who to look for. Every little bit helps.

This process made me remember a number of important things:
Always select Soundex if it is there as an option
Always look at an original document if you can or, failing that, at an image of the original
Be prepared to backtrack
Be patient and check things thoroughly
Have a look at where places are, particularly in relation to each other
Don't be half-hearted
Don't give up

Matters of Conviction - Francis and Denis Keefe

Francis and Denis Keefe were brothers and cousins to Philip Keefe. Unlike Philip, both Francis and Denis could read and write, and Francis at least tried to turn this to his advantage on a number of occasions.

They were born in County Kerry, Ireland, Francis in 1794 and Denis in 1799. Francis was a reaper and Denis a shearer and reaper. On 23 March 1823 the brothers were up before the Court in Tralee, Co. Kerry, on a charge of coining (that's counterfeiting in more modern terms). They were found guilty and each sentenced to seven years' transportation to New South Wales. They were held first in  Tralee, but soon were shifted to Cork Goal. This posed a threat to the Keefe brothers, as letters from them to the General Governor of Ireland, the Marquis Wellesley, show. Francis had told a Kerry magistrate of the location of a rebel arms stash, resulting not only in the seizing of the weapons but also in arrests. Tralee and Cork Goals held many rebels, so I don't think the Keefe boys felt it was any exaggeration when they wrote "if something is not done without delay for us the results will be fatal for us".

The only thing that was done was to shift them, along with the other transportees, to the Hulk Surprise. In August they were all loaded onto the Isabella. The ship's surgeon, William Rae, recorded that they all appeared healthy, although they were very poorly clothed, few with shoes or stockings, one man with only a blanket "to cover his nakedness" and another with trousers with only one leg in them. Many were suffering from Catarrh, a thick mucus buildup resulting from colds and flu, but were otherwise well. However, about a month out to sea, a number of men came down with scurvy and it was revealed that while on the hulk several had been confined with a fever. On top of the illness, it was not a good crossing. Morale was unusually low. Rae claimed in his journal that there was a gang among the prisoners systematically terrorising and robbing the convicts. Given the state of the prisoners recorded in Rae's journal, I wonder what was being taken. The trouser perhaps, as an item of novelty wear?

Then Rae, and the captain, John Wallis, were informed of a plot by the gang to mutiny and murder all aboard who would not join up:

Through the courage of one man, we fortunately discovered the horrid plot that was hatching against us, which obliged me to replace the most of them in irons and curtail their liberty upon deck as it was improper again to trust men who had been guilty of such base ingratitude for as much liberty granted to them and kind treatment during a period of distress.

Who was this man? None other than Francis Keefe. When the Isabella arrived in Sydney, Rae and Wallis gave to Governor Stewart a fuller account of Francis' role in thwarting the mutiny:

 We have to inform your Excellency that in the course of our voyage hither we had the good fortune to discover a dangerous mutiny which was on the eve of breaking out amongst the prisoners, and but for timely prevention would certainly have ended in much bloodshed.

For the information we are mainly indebted to a prisoner of the name of Francis Keefe who at the risk of his own life concealed himself whilst he wrote a short note containing the information. This plot from all the credible evidence we have been able to collect concerning it had been matured by a few of the worst of characters and they had even evinced some degree of cunning in poisoning the minds with the idea of money being on board which was to be distributed amongst those who should most distinguish themselves.

Keefe is a man superior to most of the prisoners, has conducted himself with much propriety and some of the ringleaders have even attempted to invalidate his evidence.

Situated as we have all been we should be guilty of an act of injustice if we did not recommend this man in the strongest manner to your Excellency 's notice. We here enclose the names of the principal Ringleaders...

The ringleaders were Charles Devatt, James Kelly, Patrick and Denis Brennan, James Lawler, William Cowen and Patrick Macnamara. Devatt, Kelly, the Brennans and Lawler were sent on to Port Macquarie, where Denis Brennan died just under a year later. Cowen was sent on to Parramatta and Macnamara to Newcastle.

Francis was rewarded with a Ticket of Leave, straight off the boat. Interestingly Denis Keefe claimed no part in this, or was given no opportunity to claim part. The thwarted mutiny and subsequent reward of the informant was reported in the Sydney Gazette, although, wisely, it did not state Francis' name.

Sydney Gazette, 25 December 1823, page 2

Mind you, the following week the Gazette published the name of the one prisoner from the Isabella to receive a Ticket of Leave.

Denis, meanwhile, was assigned to Alexander Berry and Edward Wolstonecraft at Nowra. They had been given a land grant of 10,000 acres in the Shoalhaven area and needed convict labour to clear and farm the land. Denis, as a reaper and sheep shearer, was perfectly qualified, although he probably began work as a sawyer.

Being assigned meant that Denis was fed and clothed, provided for, albeit it in exchange for very hard work. Francis, as a Ticket of Leave man, had more freedom but, it turned out, less certainty.

He wrote to Sir Thomas Brisbane, KC to the Governor, on 17 August 1824. Beginning with his vital role in quelling the Isabella mutiny and subsequent awarding of a Ticket of Leave, Francis went on 

Petitioner having been out of Employment and unable to get one to suit him, most humbly entreats your Excellency to grant him one

I take this to mean that Francis is asking for a job. The Colonial Secretary understood it to mean a Ticket of Leave (which Francis already possessed) and turned him down. Francis' wording in his letter is interesting "unable to get one to suit him". Any job? Or one that he fancies? Either way, he was clearly out of luck. But Francis came up with at least one backup plan that put him and Denis back in Court and back in the papers.

The Sydney Gazette, 1 September 1825, page 3, had the following police report:

The stacks had been burnt on 1 July. The Australian reported that "(Denis) was observed near the stacks, a few minutes before the fire was discovered, where he remained a short time, and returned to his hut". Denis was tried on 14 October and acquitted on an informality in the indictment, but was then "remanded on a fresh information". The "fresh information" turned out to be rather sensational

Sydney Gazette, 27 October 1825, page3

The penal settlement in question was Port Macquarie, where four of the Isabella mutineers were still serving time (the reference to trusty servants is due to the number of cases involving convicts of Berry and Wollstonecraft in September and October of 1825. More than a few were stealing from their masters).

1829 and Francis made the papers again, although this time as the victim. He was sitting in Pashley's drinking house in The Rocks, when Cornelius Ryan picked his pocket. Ryan took a bag containing £17 in notes and some loose coins - dollars and rupees. Ryan was caught and the bag found on him. But the question must be asked of how Francis got hold of such a large sum of money.

Denis seems to have kept his head down after Port Macquarie. On 31 March 1830 he received his Certificate of Freedom and decided he had had enough of New South Wales. He applied for permission to return home and sailed out of Sydney aboard the Dryade on 16 March 1831. A stowaway, James Thomas, was found on board the following day, so the journey was delayed briefly, and the Dryade eventually sailed through the Heads on 18 March, 1831. I have lost Denis' trail here as I am not yet sure if he made it all the way back to Kerry, or if he decided to stay on in London when the Dryade docked.

So, back to Francis. He also received his Certificate of Freedom in 1830, on 22 March, about a week before his brother.

Francis Keefe's Certificate of Freedom, 1830. Note offence is listed as "coining"

Next he applied for land and a bride. The land was in the Burragorang, not far from his cousin, Philip. The wife came courtesy of the convict transport Princess Royal in the shape of Sarah Clarke, spinner, of Gloucestershire. Francis and Sarah were married in Sydney on 3 June 1830. I can find no record of children from this union. The marriage was not to last. In 1836, Sarah's Ticket of Leave made no mention of Francis, and on her Certificate of Freedom in 1842 she was listed as the wife of Richard Turton per transport Henry.

Francis made another court appearance, this time in Berrima, in October, 1840, charged with receiving stolen goods. He was found not guilty and discharged, but was not so lucky two years later when he appeared in the same court with his cousin, Philip, charged with killing one head of cattle with intent to steal the carcasse. Both men were sentenced to 15 years' transportation to Van Diemans Land. They were held on Cockatoo Island for seventeen months and then put aboard the Louisa bound for Hobart.

In the 1844 indent, Francis described himself as single with no children. When asked about his prior offences he replied

I went to Sydney per Isabella in 1820 for 7 years for being an United Irishman"

Remember, this is the man who had informed on United Irishmen, leading to seizing of rebel arms and of rebels themselves. The year is wrong, but that could be a clerical error in the record, it is recorded as 1823 in the Ross records (along with the United Irishman claim). The huge discrepency in crime, however, has got to come directly from Francis. Last time he was transported, he improved his lot by informing on a mutiny plot. Now he sought again to dress his reputation, at least among the prisoners, by painting himself as an Irish rebel.

On 9 January 1849 Francis received another Ticket of Leave, this time his last one. Ever the chancer, he applied for a Conditional Pardon, but this was refused on 29 July of that year. A recommendation for the Pardon was made by the authorities on 12 February, 1850 and the Conditional Pardon itself was granted on 25 May, 1851. It seems Francis had finally learnt to behave himself, and received six years off his sentence as a result.

At the moment, the last I can find of Francis Keefe is his listing as a steerage passenger aboard the City of Melbourne steamer from Hobart to Melbourne. Where he went from here and how he fared is yet to be uncovered.

Matters of Conviction - Philip Keefe and Margaret Daly, Part 2

So Philip Keefe and his cousin Francis were arrested for "killing cattle with intent to steal the carcase". They appeared in Berrima Court House on 16 September 1842, before Justice Sir William Westbrooke Burton. Burton was a man who applied the law equally, even in respect of race, but he took no excuses from anyone. Margaret meanwhile scraped up what funds she could to employ a lawyer to defend Philip. Not only did she risk losing her husband to goal, but, if he were found guilty, then under the law his lands and property would be confiscated, leaving his family homeless and penniless. There was much at stake.

But it was to no avail. Philip and Francis were found guilty, and were both sentenced to 15 years' transportation to Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania), with 18 months' probation. They were transferred to Darlinghurst Goal in Sydney on 4 October 1842, and from there to Cockatoo Island.

Convicts on Cockatoo Island, pencil and watercolour, 1849 by Phillipe de Vigors. State Library of New South Wales . Note the parti-coloured uniforms and the comment "Canary Birds"

The accommodation at Cockatoo Island was said to be appalling, but the food was generous. Philip was now receiving each day one pound of fresh beef or mutton, twenty ounces of bread, and half a pound of vegetables, 'when procurable'.

Meanwhile, Margaret was fighting for the livelihood of herself and her children. On the way back from Philip's trial in Berrima, Margaret stayed with Timothy Lacy, who wrote to Governor Gipps for her. The letter states that there are eight children under ten and "earnestly implores that she may be permitted to retain the land as their only refuge that can save herself from the Workhouse and the children from the Orphan School". Margaret signed with a cross. Gipps wrote on the letter that he could not intervene, but a clerk gave some hope, advising that it would be best to wait for a report on how the matter stood under law.

Neighbours and relatives helped Margaret and the children manage the land, and no eviction order was forthcoming, so they battled on. I cannot yet find the report referred to by the Clerk, but whatever it was, it eventually brought good news. Margaret was granted, by order of the Governor, the right to retain the land, and the Deeds were eventually made in her name. The family was safe.

On 17 February 1844 Philip and Francis were put aboard the transport Louisa and sailed out of Sydney, bound for Van Dieman's Land. They arrived in Hobart on 1 March 1844 and were assigned to a chained Road Gang, constructing a road from Hobart to Launceston. Philip made it as far as Ross, about 117 km north of Hobart. I don't know when he was admitted to the hospital at Ross, but the prison records state that he "Died at the Hospital Ross, 13th Novr 1845". He was buried on 14 November 1845 in the Church of England section of Ross Cemetery, despite being clearly listed as a Roman Catholic in the prison record book.

Map of Tasmania, showing location of Ross. From Man O' Ross Hotel website. www.manoross.com

Now things with Margaret get a little confused. Having secured her land, Margaret kept the family going, but also continued to have children. Owen casts doubt on the parentage of Cornelius as his information said that Cornelius was born in 1843. However, NSW State records clearly show Cornelius as being born in 1842 (we are so lucky with the records that are now available to us), so he could very easily be a child of Margaret and Philip. However, then there is Michael, born 1845 and Margaret, born 1851. Owen concludes that "the two or three youngest were born out of wedlock to female members of the family and were accepted as the tail-enders of their grandparent's family" (Rabbit Hot, p.316). But there is another explanation. Under NSW law at the time, children born out of wedlock were required to take their mother's name, even if the father was around. Also, children were required to take the name of their mother's husband, even if he wasn't the biological father.

Margaret Keefe, ni Daly, married William "Bill" Large on 2 June 1848 in Campbelltown. He could easily have been the father of Michael. Margaret was 45 when little Margaret was born, but I don't see whose else she could be. The only other girls in the family were Catherine and Ellen. In 1851 Catherine already had her own family and indeed gave birth to a boy that year, and Ellen, at 10 years of age, would have been too young. To further complicate this, I am struggling to find records for little Margaret beyond "Rabbit Hot, Rabbit Cold", so I would love to know where Owen found her. It is one of the few areas where he doesn't explain his source (it could be Picton Court House, as those who were registered were registered there). But, if little Margaret was the daughter of William and Margaret, why was she known as Margaret Keefe and not Margaret Large?

I am unclear what happened to William Large. There is a William Large in NSW BDM who died in Tunut in 1881, well after Margaret died, but there are also reports that Bill predeceased Margaret. Clearly, more work needs to be done, and death certificates ordered. So I will go with what I know. Margaret Large, labourer's wife (implying Bill was still alive), died at Cox's River, Burragorange, 13 June 1877, age 74 years. Parents Patrick Daly and (unknown) Higgins. Cause of death was a) Erysipelas (an infectious skin disease), b) old age. There was no physician present. Buried RC Cemetery Burragorang, William Packenham undertaker, no Minister present. Witnesses R. O'Reilly and James Maxwell, born in Ireland, lived in colony 46 years. Informant, Francis Keefe, her son, of Cox's River.

The family farm was sold, reportedly for far less than its real value, and the bulk of the Keefe children left Burragorang. Catherine remained, living with ex-convict George Pearce.

Matters of Conviction - Philip Keefe and Margaret Daly

Can I just say, here and now, I HATE flu season? I HATE flu season. Done.

It was hard to decide where to start, I have quite a few convicts in my family tree, 26 at last count (don't panic, I am not going to write about them all). In the end, my great great great great grandparents, Philip Keefe and Margaret Daly, were the obvious choices as they naturally lead to a number of others. Convict family groups were not uncommon.

Some of Philip and Margaret's stories (and their relatives) will be drawn from Owen Pearce's "Rabbit Hot, Rabbit Cold", an excellent history of Owen's ancestors and relatives from the Burragorang Valley. Owen was an engaging writer, but more importantly he was a careful one. Events are documented and credit is meticulously given, making this a relatively reliable family history book. If you have family from the Burragorang, even if you are not related to the Pearces, Shoobridges, Kerswells, Kings, Maxwells, Hunts or Keefes, try to find a copy of "Rabbit Hot, Rabbit Cold" for a view of Valley life. Owen also mentioned a lot of Valley people who weren't from these families, so you never know...

If anyone can put me in touch with Owen's family, I'd be really pleased.

Enough of the book review.

Philip Keefe/Keeffe and Margaret Daly/Daley
Philip was born in County Kerry, Ireland, in 1797. There is an alternate birth year of 1799, but that comes from only one source. The other sources back 1797. Owen Pearce says Philip came from a large farming family. In 1820 Philip, Darby and John Mulcahy and  one other were arrested for sheep stealing. Tried at Kerry, they were found guilty and sentenced to seven years' transportation to New South Wales. Although Philip's parents petitioned the Irish Government, asking for leniency, none was forthcoming and Philip left Ireland on 16 June 1821, bound for Sydney via Rio de Janiero. The transport was the John Barry 2, captained by Roger Dobson. Daniel McNamara was the ship's surgeon. For someone who could neither read nor write, letters were to play quite a part in Philip's life, although few of them ever did him any good.

The ship's muster listed Philip's age as 22, giving a calculated birth date of 1799. I can't find other documents that agree with this.

During the voyage, on the night of 18 August 1821 the convicts were unusually rowdy, and a drunk guard discharged his musket "point-blank into the prison" (Rabbit Hot, p309). The prisoners increased their noise (no surprise), the other guards panicked and they also fired their muskets into the prison. It is a miracle that only three prisoners were wounded, and none died, despite two of the three being seriously wounded. The guard who started it was arrested. The John Barry docked in Sydney on 7 November 1821.

On disembarkation, Philip was assigned to the Government, to work in the Rooty Hill area. Government convicts were generally the fittest, those deemed best able to build the colony (often literally). In 1823 he was assigned to a Frederick Murphy and then in February 1824 to John Lacy of Parramatta. In January 1825 Lacey requested permission for Philip to be put in charge of cattle being run on land in the Wollondilly at "a spot known by the native name of Brimmillo". This is in the Lower Burragorang Valley. John Lacy, his family and convict servants were the first European setttlers in the Lower Burragorang, and Philip was amongst them, tending to the dairy herd.

Lacy was happy with Philip's work and wrote to the Colonial Secretary in November 1825 requesting that Philip and three other convicts be granted land adjoining his own (or perhaps he was merely seeking to control more land through his convict servants - personally, I would rather think well of him). Request denied.

1827 Certificate of Freedom for Philip Keefe

1827 and a Certificate of Freedom, which was only granted after correspondence between John Lacy and the Colonial Secretary. Note the year of birth, 1797. After he was freed, Philip applied again for land adjoining Lacy's. Again he was unsuccessful. Lacy continued to employ him, and paid him wages in money and in stock. Money was a bit of a rare commodity at times, so payment in goods was not unusual. Mid 1831, having had his land application turned down, Philip went further up the Burragorang, finally securing three blocks of land (to a total of  170 acres) on the Cox's River. According to Owen Pearce, this land later became part of Strathmore, owned by the McMahon family.

Previously owned by Philip Keefe. Strathmore: Thomas McMahon in foreground with impressive whiskers. About 1903. Photo courtesy of Blue Mountains City Library

More letters. Poor Philip couldn't get the deeds to his land as there was a dispute over which Police Division the land fell into. John Lacy handled the correspondence, but nothing much was decided. Bureaucracy has always had a knack for dragging its feet.

Meanwhile, Philip Keefe got on as well as he could, clearing his land, building fences and a house, farming and running his cows and pigs. He also applied for permission to marry. It took 10 months for permission to be granted, and Margaret Daly, aged 25 years, of the transport Palambam, became Mrs Keefe on 22 December 1831. I don't know if she was assigned or requested, if they had met before they were married and if so how.

Margaret was Irish and Catholic, like Philip, but hailed from County Cork. She had worked as a dairy maid, but was found guilty in 14 August 1830 of stealing clothes. She was sentenced to seven years' transportation and arrived in Sydney on 31 July 1831. Two convicts had died on the voyage.

Initially Margaret was assigned to HC Antill, but I don't know what her duties were. Winter in Australia, while it can be cold, is not like winter in Ireland. Margaret may have thought the weather quite pleasant. But then came summer, and a new husband, and a new home, down in the Burragorang. I often wonder what she thought of it all.

Philip and Margaret had between six and nine children together over the next ten years. I can find records for five, but with the family illiterate and the Valley quite isolated, it is not surprising that some were unregistered. Letters written for Philip and Margaret over the years also state different numbers of children, first nine and then eight. Maybe some died or maybe, as Owen Pearce suggests, counting was a problem. Either way, time marched on and still the matter of the Deeds was not resolved. John Lacy continued to write letters for the family, trying to sort things out (see why I want to think well of him?), but to no avail. Letters were returned, each body claiming to not have responsibility or jurisdiction. Margaret's Certificate of Freedom was granted in 1838, but still the family's fortunes did not change. Instead, they were set to become worse.

Margaret Daly's Certificate of Freedom 1838

In 1841 Philip suffered a severe stroke which left him paralysed down one side and unable to work the farm. With no means of producing food or of gaining income, the family faced starvation. John or possibly Timothy Lacy penned a letter for Philip to Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales and Philip signed said letter with a cross. It laid out the predicament, put forward Philip's desire to sell his land in order to feed his children and begged for "merciful consideration" and the Governor's intervention. Again the Keefes were met with, as Owen Pearce puts it, "red tape and buck passing" (Rabbit Hot, p.312).

However, on 21 February of 1842, George Gipps came good and the land was duly recorded as Philip's. There are two records in the Register of Land Grants and Leases. The first is for 120 acres in Cook "at Black's Hollow near Burragoraang situated on the North side of Cox's River...promised to John Farrell on or before the 31st March 1821 and 10th may 1824... and advertiased at his request in favour of the said Philip Keefe as No.204 in the Government notice dated 7th November 1838 and the Deed now prepared in his name in pursuance thereof" and 50 acres "Being the land promised to William Danley or Danaly on or before the 18th November 1825...on or before 18th November 1825...advertised in favor of the said Philip Keefe at the request of the Promisee as No.203 in the Government notice dated 7th November 1838 and the Deed now prepared in his name in pursuance thereof".

So the land was securely his, yet Philip didn't sell any of it. I don't know if he offered it for sale and found no takers, or if he just held onto the land once he had the Deeds.

And now things get murky. The bald facts are as follows:
In the second half of 1842, Philip and his cousin Francis killed a bullock that had strayed from a neighbour, Joseph Story. They shared the meat and buried hide and head in Philip's paddock behind his house. A local, already under suspicion of cattle duffing, turned in the cousins to the police and personally led the police to where the hide and head were buried.

But it can't be that simple. Philip was paralysed down one side, he was unable to work. How on earth did he help kill a bullock? Francis was a trouble-maker and an inciter to crime (I'll get to him when I can work out just how many Tickets of Leave he was awarded and lost), and he liked to avoid trouble for himself wherever possible. He was also not above shopping others to save his own skin. I suspect it was his idea to bury the evidence on Philip's farm, possibly on the grounds that Philip's family had the more desparate need of the meat, even though he took his share. Did Philip even know where the remains were? And if so, did he object or just go along with it? And what could he have done to stop Francis burying the evidence on his land?

Then there is the question of how the informant knew so much. Had he helped with it all and then seen an opportunity to take some of the heat off himself for his other misdemeanours? Had he been initially instrumental in the bullock "straying" in the first place? Had Francis ticked him off so he took a course of petty revenge?

It probably isn't possible to uncover the truth in all this, but regardless of where the truth lay, it meant harder times for Margaret and the children, and death for Philip.

Part 2 coming up.

Matters of Conviction

Long, long time between posts. Sorry, guys.

Most of us of Anglo descent in Australia have convicts in our families. It used to be a point of shame. After all, these people had broken the law and been forcibly removed from society. Their arrival in Australia was a matter of punishment, not choice. And who wanted to admit to a criminal in the family?

My grandmother was always very proud of the fact that her grandmother was a free settler who arrived in South Australia, a colony that did not have convicts. She never told us that her grandfather was the son of a convict. That was kept very quiet.

Convicts going to work nr. Sidney N.S. Wales, Edward and James Backhouse, 1842. State Library of Tasmania

How things have changed. Now there is a certain cachet in claiming convict ancestors. A vicarious thrill, perhaps? Or a pride in being part of the beginnings of this country, albeit involuntarily, particularly if you can claim a First Fleeter. I get that, I feel that (the latter). But it all seems to come with a certain amount of romanticising. We are all familiar with the idea of the wrongful conviction, or the plea of "they were driven to it". When you talk to people, so many convicts seem to have been sent out for stealing a loaf of bread. But go and look at the records and a different picture emerges. Yes, there were clear cases of stealing to survive, grabbing some food to feed the starving family, but that was not all that was being taken, and the reason for the crime was not always so pitiable. Clothes were a popular target, along with household items and linen. These were largely taken to resell, and not all thefts were from the rich. There are few real Robin Hoods in real life. Then there was the theft of animals - sheep stealing and the like. Counterfeiting, or "coining" was also a common offence. And don't forget assault. Quite a number of our convict ancestors were violent thugs or career criminals. Whether crimes could be justified or not, there was little that was romantic about any of it.

Undeniably there was poverty, no social welfare, and if you think the workhouse was an option, go and actually read "Oliver Twist". Life for the lower classes was hard and tough and cruel. But not everyone resorted to crime to get by. There was a concept of right and wrong, and people strove to do the right thing. For those who took the lower path, transportation rather than hanging gave the convicted a second chance and many found that they could do the right thing when the opportunity arose. What they achieved here was remarkable.

Almost all my convict ancestors I have found did commit an offence. Whether or not the punishment was proportionate is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that they were guilty. I say almost all because there is one clearly wrongful conviction and one that is very suspicious, but all the others definitely deserved their day in court.

I have had to accept my family's convict past. Unlike my grandmother I have no trouble doing so. It is a fact of history and that is all there is to it. Quite frankly, it is a surprise to find a free settler when I go looking, the number of convicts far outweighs them. And convicts leave a wonderful paper trail to follow.

So, over the next little while I am intending to write about some of my convict ancestors. Some stories will be more sketchy than others, that's the way of family history. We will see what comes out.

So what's with this removed thing anyway?

I was discussing my family research with my children the other day and telling them about someone who was "a second cousin twice removed". I have talked like this before, my son is fascinated by the idea that he is Jane Austen's sixth cousin seven times removed, but I didn't realise quite how opaque this sort of terminology can be until my son asked, "What's a second cousin?" and my daughter screwed up her face and asked "So what's with this removed thing anyway?" And then I realised my mum didn't quite get it either. It turns out I have been speaking a foreign language to most of my family for the last few years. At least. Time to fix it.

Let's start with first, second, third, etc. cousins, because that's the really easy bit:

Joan and Albert are siblings. They each marry and have children. Their children are cousins. We all get that, most of us are cousins to someone else. Cousins are also called first cousins, I suppose because they are one step from the siblings.

Joan's grandchildren and Albert's grandchildren are all second cousins, because they are two steps from the siblings.

Joan's great grandchildren and Albert's great grandchildren are all third cousins, because they are three steps from the siblings, and so on.

If you think of it as a family tree heading down from a source, you are looking at people who are on the same generational row as each other. They are all cousins, the number depends on how far down they are from the source siblings.

All well and good, but what if you are trying to work out the relationship between people who are not on the same generational row? That's where "removed" comes in.

The tough bit is going to be working out how to explain this simply.

When you are talking about "three times removed" or "eight times removed" or "z times removed", you are actually describing how far you have to go to find someone on your line in the same generational row as your target person.

Using the above chart, I can work out the relationship of Ruth (on Albert's side) to Rita (on Joan's side). First I need to find someone in Ruth's line who is in the same generational row as Rita. That's Arthur.

What is the relationship of Arthur to Rita? Because I have colour-coded the chart, it is easy to see that Arthur and Rita are first cousins. So we know Ruth and Rita are going to be "first cousins z times removed". For the next bit you may find it easier to cover up everyone below Rita on her side of the chart, leaving only Arthur's line visible.

To work out the "removed", we need to count how many generations Ruth is from Arthur. The answer is two. So Ruth and Rita are "first cousins twice removed".

Another way to put it is to ask yourself these questions:

How far in generations is person A from person B?

How far is person B from the sibling pair?

The first question gives you "times removed", the second question gives you the cousin number.

For a last example I have included a chart of my relationship to Jane Austen. Yes, as my husband never fails to point out, it is very distant, but in this case that is precisely the point. I have only included the directly relevant people in the tree, leaving off all other siblings, in order to simplify things (apologies to my siblings particularly). Also, I have colour-coded the cousin rows with strong colours. Once things move beyond common generations you will notice that I have used only one colour, a pastel shade (approximately) of the last cousin colour used, to show that I have found the cousin number and am now dealing in removes.

 So I am Jane Austen's 6th cousin 6 times removed, and my children are her 6th cousins 7 times removed.

If this is clear as mud, try Wikipedia. They have a really good explanation which includes such things as double cousins, half cousins and cousins-in-law