Australian Dictionary of Biography

At eight o’clock on the morning of 8 April 1784, the Mercury, carrying 179 convicts bound for Virginia, United States, was ‘twenty-five leagues to [the] westward of St. Mary's, on the West India Rocks’, having departed England just six days prior.[1] Suddenly, its convict passengers revolted

…in consequence it is said, of a concerted plot between them and the first mate of the ship, from whose cabin they took a brace of pistols and two blunderbusses; and, having previously sawed off their irons, they rushed upon the deck. The Captain and crew consisting of only 25 made a desperate resistance for an hour, in which three were mortally wounded, but they were at length obliged to surrender, and were immediately loaded with irons.[2]

This essay considers the 82 convicts who, after participating in the mutiny on board the Mercury, subsequently arrived in Australia on the First and Second Fleets in 1788 and 1790 (see Appendix 1).[3] Its primary purpose is twofold. It will consider the strengths and limitations of different biographical practices, namely prosopography, collective biography, and biography, both generally and with respect to Australian convict history, by applying these to the Mercury convicts as a case study. Furthermore, it seeks to provide a comprehensive account of Mercury convicts’ experiences through a consideration of what historical questions can be answered about the identity of this group, given the paucity of surviving archival material. It argues that given the extent of the existing records for these convicts, neither methodology alone can sufficiently offer a satisfactory analysis of the group and that all three must be used simultaneously to achieve such an aim.

Over the course of 80 years, from 1788 to 1868, some 163,000 convicts were transported from the United Kingdom and its colonies to Australia.[4] The administration of an undertaking of this scale produced a wealth of documentation, much of which survives today.[5] Official bodies, such as the State Library Board in Victoria, made it difficult (and in some cases impossible) for historians and the public to access convict records until as late as the 1970s, due to lingering concerns over Australia’s ‘convict stain’.[6] As such, Australia’s convict past initially received little attention from historians. More recently, the richness of this existent archive has been recognised as having enormous potential for applying the methods of big data analysis to Australian foundational history.[7] Similarly, it will be argued that this same archive offers historians a unique opportunity to study the convicts’ common characteristics using the methods of biography, prosopography, and collective biography.[8] The historiography of convict transportation has proceeded through several distinct phases as the archives were increasingly consulted.

The first major phase of convict historiography can be dated from 1956, when Manning Clark refuted the commonly accepted narrative that convicts were victims of poverty, instead arguing that they were members of a professional criminal class, in which an individual pursued criminal activity in the same way he or she would a profession.[9] Clark’s impression soon became the consensus, following a monumental study of the convicts by Lloyd Robson, a pioneer in the application of quantitative analysis to convict history, in which he sampled one in twenty convicts.[10] As Stephen Garton argued, Robson’s 1965 findings ‘laid the foundation for all future discussions’ of the social character of convicts and forever ‘changed the map of convict studies’.[11] Indeed, A. G. L. Shaw and a succession of historians into the 1980s characterised the convicts as a professional criminal class.[12] Other work to emerge as a part of the turn towards the systematic study of convict transportation to Australia included Charles Bateson’ famous The Convict Ships (1959). In it, he documented the phenomenon of convict transportation to Australia by assembling a complete list of all ships that made the voyage, as well other details such as how many convicts each ship carried.[13] In Convict Workers (1988), the economics of convict labour was also systematically studied, thereby overturning previous understandings of the limited literacy and skill sets of convicts. The contributing historians showed that convicts were skilled workers, whose occupations and literacy were representative of the English and Irish working classes.[14]

The second phase of Australian convict historiography was one in which historians began to consider the diversity of convicts. Prominent among the work that emerged in this stage was George Rudé’s Protest and Punishment (1978), in which he examined the transportation of social and political protestors to Australia.[15] Building on Rudé’s work, subsequent historians documented the transportation of political prisoners from the United States and Canada to Australia.[16] Increasing awareness of the diversity of the social classes of convicts accompanied a growing realisation of their national and ethnic diversity. Historians have shown that convicts were transported to Australia from across the British Empire and that among them were former slaves and indentured labourers.[17] Convicts even included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples transported within Australia, as well as criminals sent from the nearby colony of New Zealand.[18] Additionally, female convicts began to receive specialised attention as a significant cohort of the convict population.[19]

The current phase of Australian convict historiography is one largely attuned to studying more nuanced aspects of convict lives, such as their education and health.[20] Historians of the convict era are also exploring the ways in which transportation to Australia can be understood within the context of global systems of forced labour migration.[21] The discovery of new sources has led to new questions being asked about convicts that were not considered in the earlier historiography. For instance, Janet McCalman and Rebecca Kippen have conducted life course research on convicts that seeks to fully document these lives by utilising archives prior to, during, and post transportation. By using this approach, they examine questions regarding the life outcomes of transported convicts.[22] This essay borrows from all three stages of the historiography, in that a sample of convicts is examined and questions of social character, diversity, and life courses are considered. It is also pluralist in its methodologies.

Section 1: Theory and Methodology
Biography, prosopography, and collective biography have been the subject of debate over their definitions and usefulness in historical studies. As Barbara Caine stressed in Biography and History (2010), biography in the classical world was considered distinct from historical enquiry, which was held in higher status.[23] It was not until the seventeenth century that Francis Bacon challenged this distinction, arguing that individual lives constituted history just as much as great events. Bacon’s ideal was one that would be shared more widely by biographers in the eighteenth century.[24] By the twentieth century, the place of biography within history was a complex one. A sizeable group of historians felt that biography overemphasised the role of the individual, thereby neglecting wider historical processes.[25] However, historians are increasingly arguing for the potential of biography to demonstrate ‘the impact of legal and social institutions and large-scale social, economic and political developments on the lives of individuals and groups’.[26]

Of these three methods, prosopography remains the most conceptually vague. Perhaps the most cogent definition of the method remains that offered by Lawrence Stone in the 1970s. In his leading article, Stone suggested that prosopography is ‘the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives’.[27] The methodology of prosopography, as outlined by Stone, involves the collection of key biographical details pertaining to a select group of individuals. These details consist of attributes relating to major life events such as birth, marriage, and death, as well as defining characteristics such as education, religion, occupation, and place of residence.[28] Notably, the methodology of prosopography became the subject of intense debate between two prominent twentieth century British historians: Lewis Namier and Herbert Butterfield and their ‘schools’. At the heart of their conflict was an issue central to the utilisation of lives as units of analysis, whether to study lives individually or collectively.[29]

Just as there has been debate surrounding the nature of biography and prosopography, collective biography has also been largely ill-defined and controversial. The conceptual problems faced by collective biography have partially stemmed from its similarity to prosopography. What the methods share in common, as Krista Cowman argued, is ‘a focus on the group’ as well as ‘an interest in how the group impacted on certain things – systems, organisations, institutions – rather than a more subjective concern about how engagement with these things affected the individuals of whom the group was comprised’.[30] With respect to methodology, collective biography has been criticised as being ‘not based upon rigorously established selection criteria’.[31] Cowman challenges this accusation, arguing that collective biography has a distinct methodology in which the individual remains the centre of focus, even when lives are used to analyse collective experiences or study certain types of communities.[32] Not only can the method be used to explore connections between individuals, argues Cowman, but it also has the potential to shed light on the motivations of groups engaging in collective action.[33]

Strengths and Limitations
As methods of historical enquiry, biography, collective biography, and prosopography have varying theoretical and practical strengths and limitations with respect to different research questions. The central aim of biographical research is to ‘to create or establish a better understanding of individuals and their motives or their life experiences’.[34] As such, biography takes an individual as its focus. Yet biographies often prominently feature several other individuals without who the biography would be incomplete, thereby complicating the distinction between biography and collective biography. Moreover, biographical researchers often benefit from having a wealth of source material available on notable individuals. The reliance on source material can also be a severe limitation of biographical research, in that biographers are often hindered by a lack of archives from which to reconstitute an individual’s life.[35] Theoretically, biographical research not only has the potential to narrate an individual’s life and provide insight into their motivations, but it can also unite different kinds of historical fields in a way that other modes of inquiry cannot.[36] Historians like Ian Kershaw, however, argue that biography is limited in its ability to inform ‘long-term processes of historical transformation, or even in illustrating them’.[37]

The problem of a lack of surviving sources for biographical research is less of a constraint when researching collective biography, as the examination of multiple lives allows a researcher to utilise individuals with differing levels of surviving archival material. Collective biography also has certain theoretical benefits. The writing of ‘group biographies’ allows an interest in individuals to be supplemented and complemented by a consideration of the kinds of networks that connect them.[38] These networks could be more abstract, for instance in terms of ideologies or structures, or more concrete (such as familial or occupational networks). Such a methodology has been used in political and social history and is particularly well suited for studies focusing on intimate subjects.[39] A theoretical concern that is ever present in conducting collective biographical research is the risk of making false generalisations from a narrow set of cases. As such, the selection of subjects is crucial. This issue can be minimised by contextualising the lives examined with prior historical knowledge.[40]

As an analytical tool, prosopography can employ advanced multi-variate statistical analysis, done with the benefit of digital databases and advanced processing power from modern computers.[41] Unlike biography and collective biography, which can be limited by a lack of sources, prosopography is conceptualised as a ‘system for organizing mostly scarce data in such a way that they acquire additional significance by revealing connections and patterns influencing historical processes’.[42] As such, prosopography is well suited for the study of groups of individuals for whom little biographical sources survive. A significant limitation of the method is the careful consideration needed in determining the selection criteria for a group of people, particularly as only a select sub-population of a group will typically be studied. In attempting to identify the average, commonness, or general trajectory of the life histories of a group of individuals, it is possible that the selected case will provide a false impression of the group.[43]

‘Lumping’ and ‘Splitting’
All the biographical methods discussed revolve around an issue at the core of using lives in historical research: that of whether individuals should be considered as they are or as members of a collective. Colloquially, this is known as the problem of ‘lumping and splitting’.[44] The problem is essentially one of classification. To ‘lump’ things together is to classify them as belonging to the same class, or category. Conversely, ‘splitting’ is the process of fragmenting the whole into smaller categories or individual components. Alternatively, the process can also be thought of in terms of similarities and differences, where ‘lumping’ recognises the former and ‘splitting’ classifies the latter.[45]

Three main problems related to ‘lumping’ and ‘splitting’ arise in historical research. One is in the application of comparative standards, whereby historians seek to understand one phenomenon by relating it to another. Implicit in the making of such comparisons is the assumption that both phenomena belong to the same class or category, that is, that they are sufficiently similar that comparing them would highlight the relevance of their differences. Such an approach can be problematic if the cases considered are vastly different, thereby rendering the comparisons meaningless.[46] The second situation in which the problem presents itself is when comparison is used as a form of evidence for causal explanations, particularly when such explanations are based on few known cases. In such a situation, both the preconditions and the outcomes of the phenomena or cases being compared need to demonstrably belong to the same class.[47] Finally, the third situation in which the problem of ‘lumping’ and ‘splitting’ arises is where empirical evidence is meant to either support or disprove explanatory theories. If the class selected is not appropriate to the phenomenon attempting to be explained, then any explanation offered would be fundamentally flawed.[48]

In this regard Miles Fairburn is helpful. He systematically considered solutions to four main issues that arise when ‘lumping’ and ‘splitting’. The first was that of quantified class terms, such as ‘similar’ or ‘unique’, which do not have any kind of intrinsic meaning. Rather, they are context sensitive.[49] To overcome this, Fairburn suggested that classes be based on standards of difference or similarity derived from theoretical models. Secondly, there is the problem that multiple levels of abstraction are used in describing phenomena. The more detail is used to describe something, the more different it will seem to other things (and vice versa). This can be avoided by making explicit the comparative standards used.[50] Another issue is that of indefinite particularity, whereby the status of something being similar or different to another is dependent on how many standards are used in comparisons made. There are innumerable standards that can be applied, meaning that cases will inevitably appear different. Such a problem can be overcome by limiting the number of particulars applied to the most significant ones.[51] Lastly, cases may have characteristics such that they could be put in more than one category. This can be worked around by determining which characteristics hold greater weight and thereby which category would be more appropriate.[52]

Implications for Research
Prosopography, collective biography, and biography are methodologies which differ in usefulness in historical studies depending upon the nature of the sources used. For instance, prosopography is useful when rich demographic data is available. Using this method, it is possible to consider the common characteristics of the Mercury convicts. By employing collective or individual biography, historians can consider the things that differentiate these convicts. Whichever method is adopted, that is, whether the 82 convicts are lumped together or split up and the spotlight put on an individual, care must be taken in the selection of methodology. Again, a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses, usefulness and limits of various methodologies suggests a research strategy utilising mixed methods.

Section 2: Prosopography
One method by which the Mercury convicts can be examined is prosopography. As Katherine Keats-Rohan argued, prosopographical research occurs in two phases. The first is the collection of data on a group of individuals which reveals common characteristics (or lack thereof). The data then forms the basis for a multivariate analysis of the group (see the appendices for the data on which the analyses in this essay were based).[53] Two biographical dictionaries, The Founders of Australia by Mollie Gillen and The Second Fleet by Michael Flynn, serve as the ‘lexicon’ for this prosopography which, together with other archival sources, allows us to tease out Mercury convicts’ commonality.[54] The quality of this data is testified by prominent historians such as Cassandra Pybus and Alan Atkinson, who have acknowledged the immense benefits of these texts to their work.[55] The challenge for using the prosopographical method for the Mercury convicts is twofold, however. First, we cannot establish basic information for some of them; while second, the characteristics that the convicts shared must be considered or balanced by the differences between them. 

Age and Place of Birth
The Mercury convicts as a group can be described by their age, their birthplaces, gender, occupations, literacy, criminal convictions, marriage patterns, health, mortality, and its cause.  The men and women of the Mercury transported to Australia were overwhelmingly members of a generation born in the 1750s and 1760s (see Appendix 2).[56] More than half were born during the 1760s and just over one third in the preceding decade. Their total age range, however, amounted to forty years. The eldest of the group was shoemaker George Clare, who was born in Manchester, Lancashire, in about 1734. About forty years later, the youngest Mercury convict, chimney sweep John Hudson, was born in Middlesex.[57] The average Mercury convict, born in about 1760, was 24 years old at the time of the mutiny and 28 on arriving in Australia.[58] A lack (or in some cases overabundance) of surviving archives makes establishing the birthplaces of these convicts difficult, so much so that only about half could be reliably identified. Nonetheless, it appears that Mercury convicts were all either English or Irish. Of those whose place of birth could be determined, 91 percent were born in England (about half of whom were from Middlesex) and the remainder in Ireland.[59] The English convicts not native to Middlesex came from a total of fourteen different counties across England.[60] The cohort consisted mainly of men, including only eight women.[61]

Pre-Transportation Occupations
What is known of these convicts’ pre-transportation occupations comes from Ralph Clark’s diary recorded en route to Australia and the trial records of the convicts (see Appendix 3).[62] More than half of Mercury convicts were recorded as having no occupation, or have information missing regarding their trade. No single occupation predominated within the group, except perhaps temporary unskilled work. Despite this, nearly one quarter could be considered skilled workers. Clark noted numerous occupations, including saddler, book stitcher, cabinet maker, silver smith, shoemaker, weaver, wax chandler, mantua (a form of women’s gown) maker, leather breeches maker, jeweller, and watch case maker.[63] Among them were a notable minority of seamen, perhaps reflecting, as historian Jerry White noted, the position of London as the British ‘kingdom’s centre of world trade and shipping’ (see Figure 1).[64] The lack of specialised skills among Mercury convicts reflects their low literacy rate, as only about 35 percent of all convicts were able to sign their name.[65]

Figure 1: This painting illustrates the bustle of London's port in the late eighteenth century.[66]

Previous Crime
As indicated above, early Australian historians held that convicts came from the ‘professional criminal classes’ of England and Ireland.[67] Robert Hughes suggested that the New South Wales colony was founded ‘to defend English property not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within’.[68] Prior to the conviction that saw them transported, however, most Mercury convicts had no discernible criminal past (see Appendix 4).[69] Only twelve of these convicts are suspected to have had previous convictions and half of these are speculative.[70] However, it is difficult to make any claims of their criminal histories with certainty because it is often impossible to confidently link individual convicts to persons with the same name listed in earlier court documents. This problem troubled courts in the eighteenth century, for example in the case of Charles Peat.[71] Of those whose pasts can be established with certainty, three were participants in another mutiny on the Swift in 1783.[72] Their having participated in two convict mutinies makes these Mercury convicts the closest to having the kind of criminal career envisioned by earlier Australian historians. One convict with an established criminal past, though less dramatic, was Oten Batley, who was twice convicted of grand larceny.[73] Others had a far milder record, such as Redmond McGrah, who had one previous conviction for stealing a pair of linen sheets.[74]

Trials and Crimes
Just as the Mercury convicts were born within a narrow period, the crimes that resulted in their being transported were committed in a concentrated two-year period from 1782 to 1784 (see Appendix 1).[75] More than two thirds were tried in 1783, with the remainder near equally divided between 1782 and 1784.[76] This is unremarkable, given the typical amount of time that elapsed between when a convict was sentenced and embarked to be transported. About one quarter were convicted for highway robbery and assault, and two convicts for forgery, both serious offences. Another quarter had stolen clothing and other pieces of fabric. The remaining crimes were a combination of shoplifting, horse theft, and stealing an assortment of other items.[77] For example, John Turner was convicted of ‘Feloniously Steal[ing] from the Stairhead of the Upper Watergate … one Cask containing 28 gallons (or thereabouts) of Small Beer’.[78] Having  sought a different kind of beverage, John Spence was tried for having stolen nearly six pounds of green tea and eight pounds of bohea tea.[79] John Hall was sentenced to transportation after having stolen sixty pounds of butter.[80] For their crimes, the overwhelming majority of Mercury convicts were sentenced to seven years’ transportation, although nearly half to receive this punishment were reprieved from a death sentence. A minority were sentenced to fourteen years or transportation for life.[81]

Recapture, Imprisonment, and Transport
For almost all Mercury convicts, the mutiny was a drastic failure. Of the 82 subsequently sent to Australia, 55 convicts had been recaptured by the Helena while rowing to shore in small boats on 13 April 1784 (see Appendix 5). Several escapees were caught nearby in Devon, while some got as far away as Plymouth, Bristol, and London.[82] Those captured by the Helena were remanded to their former sentences.[83] A special commission was held at Exeter to convict those escapees who were recaptured on land.[84] Eighteen of the twenty-five examined by the commission were later transported to Australia.[85] Gillen argued that among these were the ringleaders of the mutiny.[86] After processing, the convicts were sent to the Dunkirk hulk on the Thames (only a handful were sent to other hulks, see Appendix 6).[87] Three years later, the ships of the First Fleet were assembled to transport the Mercury convicts yet again across the seas. The Friendship and Charlotte transported 48 and 29 of the Mercury convicts, respectively.[88] For unknown reasons, two of the men were sent to the Scarborough and one to the Alexander. Three women were transferred to the Prince of Wales.[89] Four Mercury convicts were later transported to Australia on board the Scarborough and Lady Juliana as a part of the Second Fleet.[90]

Figure 2: An express calling for the recapture of Mercury convicts following the mutiny, 15 April 1784.[91]

Crime in Australia
While their supposed lack of a criminal history may indicate that Mercury convicts were for the most part not criminals by nature, their post-transportation careers perhaps suggests otherwise. A total of 40 transportees are known to have reoffended either in England, on the voyage to Australia, or in the colonies (see Appendix 7). Five convicts were convicted again in England before embarking on the First Fleet.[92] Seven were put in irons either in the hulks or on the voyage to Australia.[93] What is most significant, however, is that most Mercury recidivists reoffended in Australia. Their crimes were rarely severe, usually consisting of stealing bread or illegally possessing rum. Although they may not have all been carried out, these reoffending mutineers were sentenced to receive a combined total of over 1,500 lashes as punishment for their crimes.[94] Two were hanged for crimes committed in Australia.[95]

Post-Transportation Migration
Not all Mercury convicts reoffended, however, and many of those that did went on to lead productive lives. Daniel Barnett, Richard Davis, and John Fendlow were among the first 22 Europeans granted land in the Hawkesbury in 1794.[96] Unsurprisingly, 40 convicts migrated to Norfolk Island at some point in their lives, with 19 of those travelling as part of the mass migration of convicts from Sydney in March 1790 (with 16 on the HMS Sirius and 3 on the HMS Supply, see Appendix 8).[97] Norfolk Island had been established partly to help solve the colony’s food shortage and by 1790 41 percent of the Europeans in Australia resided there.[98] Under Governor King’s administration, convicts were granted land and could farm to be self-sustaining.[99] By the time Norfolk Island was disbanded as a colony in 1813, many Mercury convicts had returned to New South Wales. At least six are known to have gone to Tasmania.[100] At least 39 of the 82 convicts remained in Australia permanently. Only 15 are known to have left the colony. Of these, James Cox died while at sea and James Mackie probably died in Ireland after returning home. Charles Peat spent his last years in India. The fates of the other 27 are unknown.[101]

Family
It is difficult to establish what proportion of Mercury convicts were married or lived with partners at any point in their lives, due to gaps in the sources and the inability to verify with certainty the identities of individuals in marriage records. Despite this, it has been possible to determine that more than half were married or living in a de facto relationship at some point in their lives (see Appendix 9). For the most part, the convicts were single at the time of being transported to Australia with only a handful being (or were previously) married with children. With only three exceptions, those that married in Australia did so within four years of arriving.[102] Due to gaps in the records, it has only been possible to establish that 19 of the mutineers had children, most of whom were born in Australia.[103] At least two convicts left behind families in England.[104]

Health
Little is known about the health of individual Mercury convicts. However, it is possible to make some broad comments on their health as a group. After the mutiny, the recaptured convicts were sent to Exeter gaol. The gaol quickly became overcrowded and the authorities grew concerned about the possible outbreak of ‘infectious Distempers’.[105] To combat this, the prisoners were transferred to the Dunkirk hulk. Lord Sydney ordered that the Mercury convicts be ‘examined by an experienced surgeon’ to ensure that they were ‘free from any infectious or putrid disorder[s]’.[106] Prisoners on the hulk engaged in ‘the most atrocious as well as the most licentious acts’, perhaps in part because ‘many of the prisoners are nearly if not quite naked’.[107] On the voyage to Australia, the convicts were mostly in good health.[108]

Mortality
Death or burial information is known for 44 Mercury convicts. The earliest recorded death was that of Patrick Delaney, who died on board the Friendship in 1787. Ralph Clarke noted that Delaney’s death had ‘been expected ever since he came on board’ as he was ‘at Death’s door before he came on board with us’.[109] The last known surviving Mercury convict was Susannah Garth, who died of apoplexy in Hobart on 24 June 1841, aged 78.[110] James Jemmison had the shortest lifespan, dying at Sydney Cove in 1788 aged just 21 years.[111] Charlotte Ware was probably the longest lived, passing away aged 79 years at Campbelltown in 1839.[112] The few known causes of death include execution by hanging, killed by Aboriginals, and committing suicide.[113] The average life expectancy of Mercury mutineers was 48.4 years.[114] This was significantly lower than their English compatriots, who had an average life expectancy of 61.7 years in the same period, suggesting that transportation had a negative long-term effect on Mercury convicts’ health (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: A graph comparing the probabilities of Mercury convicts and English men dying within the next ten years for every age reached.[115]

Analysis
What does a prosopographical analysis of Mercury convicts reveal? It provides historians with a clear insight into key demographic attributes, such as the age, occupations, literacy, and convictions, of the Mercury convicts. A typical convict was a male, born in about 1760 and convicted for his first offence (theft) in 1783 aged 23. Recaptured quickly after the mutiny, he was subsequently transported to Australia on the First Fleet, where he died aged 48 in 1808. In these matters, the Mercury convicts fit the patterns which Gillen and Flynn found for Australian convicts more generally. Prosopography is less helpful on other cultural attributes, however. This analysis highlights the substantial gaps in what is known about many of these convicts, such as their places of birth, if they married, had children, and when, where, and why they died.

Section 3: Collective Biography
The Mercury convicts can also be analysed by writing a collective biography of them. Collective biographies examine a group by considering the links and associations between its members, demonstrating how they were united in time and space. This method has been masterfully employed by several historians.[116] Some collective biographies have tended to examined convict lives by using their transportation to Australia as the unifying network of association.[117] Others, however, have focused on more personal connections by focussing on the networks of individual shiploads of convicts.[118] This collective biography will draw on the methodology of the latter to explore if and how shared experiences prior to and after transportation fostered associations among a ship of convicts. As the Mercury convicts are far less documented than the renowned subjects of other collective biographies, and their associations less obvious (with the likely exception of class and labour), this section will seek to uncover what kinds of connections were made and maintained by Mercury convicts that are not apparent from the prosopography.

Pre-Mutiny Criminal Associations
For some Mercury convicts, their association with other members of the group began well before the mutiny in 1784. Several had committed crimes together and were thus criminal associates. One pair of co-criminals was Elizabeth Dudgeon and Susannah Garth, who were convicted together in late 1783 for pocket picking.[119] Another was James Branagan and Robert Bruce, who, after having undertaken a highway robbery, were sentenced to transportation for seven years in 1783.[120] Simon Burn and John Haydon, following a joint highway robbery, later found themselves transported on the Mercury for their crime.[121] Forming a larger gang were Francis Garland, Joseph Morley, and Henry Roach, who were convicted for ‘feloniously assaulting Thomas Evans in the King’s Highway’, ‘putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life’ and subsequently stealing from him.[122] As these cases illustrate, Mercury convicts were beginning to form connections with each other well before their late participation in the mutiny, ones based purely on crime. Most, however, did not meet each other until transferred to Newgate Prison or the hulks prior to embarkation on the Mercury (see Figure 4). 31 of them had been held on board the Censor and Justitia hulks before they were ordered on 26 March 1784 to be transferred to the Mercury.[123] The remainder of the convicts were brought on board that same day from Newgate Prison.[124] They then, of course, spent the next two and a half weeks together on board the vessel, until they were captured after the mutiny by the Helena on 13 April. 

Figure 4: The inside of Newgate Prison, where many Mercury convicts were held.[125]

New connections were likely forged by the mutiny, as several of those who succeeded in reaching shore were later recaptured together. One example of this is Francis Garland, the highway robber, who, with William Robinson and another Mercury convict, successfully made it to Plymouth Dock before being recaptured.[126] John O’Craft and Thomas Barrett also evaded the authorities for a while, being among those who covered significance distance. They too were apprehended at Plymouth.[127] A trio consisting of John Jones, Joseph Hall, and Thomas Brown also jointly remained at large. Notably, Jones and Hall had both participated in the mutiny on the Swift the previous year, indicating that their joint escape from the Mercury was likely based on a friendship dating from that event.[128] Thus, many of the mutineers who reached shore travelled with other convicts, as opposed to adopting a free-for-all approach to evading capture, thereby demonstrating that several Mercury convicts were already forming associations prior to the mutiny. 

As outlined in the prosopography section above, most Mercury convicts did not reach the shore after the mutiny. Instead, they were quickly recaptured by the nearby Helena. It then escorted the mutineers some 30 kilometres from Torbay, where they were caught, north to Topsham. From here, they were taken under the guard of the military and transferred to Bridewell, Devon County Gaol.[129] The convicts were committed on 16 April on the oath of George Holt, Steward of the Mercury, and on the prisoners confessing to ‘seizing & and escaping from the said ship which was conveying them to America as Convicts pursuant to their sentence’.[130] Remaining there for over two months, they were subsequently transferred to the Dunkirk hulk in late June 1784.[131] This would serve as their new home for nearly three years until they were discharged onto the Friendship and Charlotte, bound for Botany Bay, on 11 March 1787.[132] No evidence has been uncovered that sheds light on the ways in which Mercury convicts may have associated with each other while in Exeter Gaol or on the Dunkirk. What is evident from this discussion is that the Mercury convicts had already spent three to four years living together before embarking on the First Fleet. Such time spent together would have been conducive to fostering new connections amongst them.

Associations by Marriage
These bonds and associations formed from shared experiences manifested in various forms in Australia. One of these was marriage. There were four marriages in which one Mercury convict married another.[133] The first was between Hannah Green and William Haynes. The archives are silent on the origins of their relationship, but it is worth noting that both were convicts on the Friendship (at least before Green was transferred to the Charlotte mid-voyage).[134] Green is not recorded as having engaged in sexual activity while on the Friendship (unlike other women such as Elizabeth Dudgeon), perhaps indicating that her relationship with Haynes can be traced back to the voyage to Australia, if not earlier.[135] One relationship was formalised much later in that of Mary Kimes and William Ayres, who were married despite their arrival in Australia being separated by two years.[136] What are likely friendships between Mercury convicts are evident from one witnessing the marriage of another. For example, Simon Burn was a witness to the marriage of William Field at Sydney on 14 July 1790. Likewise, James Thody served the same function in the marriage of Edward Flynn the previous year.[137]

Criminal Connections in Australia
Approximately 1,373 individuals are believed to have landed at Botany Bay in January 1788.[138] A new colony formed from such a relatively small population means that certain convicts appearing together in records may be purely coincidental and should be treated with scepticism as sources of deliberate association. This is particularly the case with criminal cases. For instance, William Blatherhorn and John Hall (both of the Charlotte), with two other convicts, was sentenced to 50 lashes at Norfolk Island for concealing fish they had caught.[139] The evidence is ambiguous as to whether Blatherhorn and Hall were friends or regular associates, although their having arrived on the same ship suggests so. John Haydon and Richard McDale also re-offended together, stealing pease with two others at Port Jackson in April 1788.[140] Perhaps a clearer post-transportation criminal association of Mercury convicts is found in that of Thomas Barrett, Henry Lavell, and John Hall. These men were sentenced to death for having stolen pease and beef from the food stores. Barrett was hanged, but Lavell and Hall were reprieved.[141] The bond between one pair Mercury convicts is apparent from the diary of naval officer and surgeon Arthur Bowes Smyth. In it, he recorded that Barrett, on mounting the ladder to be hanged, ‘spoke to one of the Convict men, Saddiway [sic] (a very bad fellow) an intimate acquaintance’.[142] Like these recidivists, Robert Sidaway was also a Mercury convict.[143]

Occupational Associations
Associations between Mercury convicts in Australia were not only matrimonial or criminal, but included connections focused on employment. One Mercury fleeter, Simon Burn, had by April 1790 attained the position of overseer of convict workers.[144] The previous year, Mark Wood was working for Burn when he was ordered to apologise for insolence.[145] In what was likely a more voluntary setting, John Ryan worked for Sidaway. It was Ryan’s responsibility to care for Sidaway’s house and supply him with water, as by this stage the latter was working as a baker for the commissariat.[146] Such work associations were possible well after the arrival of Mercury convicts on the First and Second Fleets, as seen between Mary Cawthorne and Thomas Hughes. Cawthorne, who arrived in New South Wales by the Britannia in 1798, was living with Mercury convict William Field from at least 1806. After his passing in 1826, she appears to have inherited his land.[147] In the 1828 census, Thomas Hughes was recorded as being employed by her.[148] A possible explanation for this is that Hughes kept in contact with Field, and decided to assist his wife in maintaining her property after Field’s passing.

Associations through Common Interests
Common interests were also a factor in some of the connections formed among Mercury convicts. As also noted in the prosopography section, many of these convicts migrated at some point to Norfolk Island (see Figure 5). Having become small farmers, Mercury convicts Thomas Restell Crowder, John Best, and James Mackie joined the Settlers and Landholders Society, founded in September 1793. The Society aimed to regulate the prices of commodities, produce, and labour.[149] Neither were their common interest purely economic. Writing on the history of convict theatres in early Australia, historian Robert Jordan noted that several Mercury convicts were involved in theatre.[150] Crowder was also among these, having likely been a leader of the Norfolk Island theatre company from its inception. He became one of its managers.[151] Edward Flynn also acted in the Norfolk Island theatre, which he possibly came to through his knowing Crowder.[152] In Sydney, Robert Sidaway assisted in the construction and management of a theatre.[153] Henry Lavell, who had been among those Mercury convicts sentenced to be hanged, performed occasionally in Sidaway’s theatre, possibly at the latter’s suggestion.[154]

Figure 5: Norfolk Island, two months after the arrival of several Mercury convicts.[155]

A collective biography of the Mercury convicts has revealed elements of the group’s rich social, political, and cultural history that could not be realised from the prosopography. It is evident that most of these convicts spent as many as five years together before setting foot in Australia, the connections between some of whom can be traced back to when they committed crime together. In that time, they co-lived in prisons, hulks, and transport ships. Given their substantial shared experiences, it is not surprising that various kinds of associations and networks between them flourished in the new colony. The intermarriage of Mercury convicts and their witnessing the marriage of others, particularly in the first weeks of settlement, sheds light on some of the romantic and platonic relationships that had developed amongst them. Just as some had broken the law together in England, others did so as well in Australia. Furthermore, approaching this group by way of collective biography has allowed their associations centred on collective interests to be made apparent. This pertains to their involvement in the Norfolk Island Settler Society and the roles of several Mercury convicts in the origins of the theatre in Australia.

Section 4: Biography
Aspects of the personality and identity of Mercury convicts can be analysed through prosopography and collective biography. Biography can also reveal significant aspects too. Considering the group through the examination of one of its members will not only serve as a way of verifying (or challenging) the findings of the other methods but also highlight the potential strengths and limitations of biographical enquiry, especially with respect to Australian convict history. Central to this exercise is the question of who of the 82 Mercury convicts will be its subject. Should it be someone who was representative of the group or, conversely, an outlier, a convict who was extraordinary in almost every respect? The biography selected straddles these extremes, that of Jamey Mackey (c.1759–1839). Historian Mollie Gillen documented Mackey’s life store in the 1980s, but this can be fleshed out considerably through original and contemporary archival research, something made possible by the advent of the commercial digitisation and indexing of records.[156]

Early Life (c.1759 – 1783)
James Mackey (variably spelt Mackay, Mackie, and McKey) was born in the parish of St James, Dublin, Ireland.[157] James and his older sister Frances were the only children of John and Margaret Mackey. He was baptised at the local Roman Catholic church on 14 September 1759.[158] By the time he was about twenty years old, on 4 April 1779, Mackey enlisted in the 62nd Regiment of Foot.[159] He is listed in military and colonial records as having been both a labourer and a weaver (with the former possibly including the latter) prior to transportation, likely indicating his occupation as a civilian.[160] At the time of his enlistment, the 62nd Regiment was serving overseas in the American War of Independence. During a particularly intense battle in 1777, the regiment sustained heavy casualties. Receiving few supplies or reinforcements, it surrendered, and its soldiers were taken prisoner. There is no indication that Mackey was part of those sent to reinforce the unit. From 1780, the regiment spent two years re-forming after its devastating losses.[161] Because of this, Mackey almost certainly remained in Great Britain.

Sentence and Transportation (1783 – 1788)
For reasons unknown, Mackey is recorded as having left the 62nd Regiment on 24 April 1783.[162] He next appears in London three months later. On 4 August, at six in the evening, he and another man entered a clothing warehouse in Saint Giles in the Fields, London, owned by Richard Worrall. The two men approached Timothy Lacy, a salesman there, and began to bargain with him for some waistcoats. Lacy went upstairs to tailor a waistcoat for one of the men. When he returned, Lacy noticed that Mackey had stuffed two waistcoats under his clothing. Upon being questioned, Mackey attempted to run away but was ultimately caught by Lacy. Subsequently tried at the Old Bailey on 10 September 1783, Mackey was found guilty of theft and sentenced to transportation for seven years.[163] At the time of his trial, Mackey was a ‘Soldier in the Guards’.[164] This indicates that he likely served in one of the flank companies of the 62nd Regiment, which were stationed at Windsor Castle to do guard duty.[165]

Along with two others, Mackey was delivered to Newgate Prison on 4 October 1783, to await ‘Transportation to some of his Majestys [sic] Colonies & plantations in America’.[166] Soon thereafter, he was transferred to a hulk to be held until 31 March 1784, when convicts were then embarked on the Mercury, bound for North America.[167] After the mutiny on board the ship, Mackey was among those immediately recaptured by the Helena on 13 April and sent to Exeter Gaol. From there, he was transferred to the Dunkirk hulk in June 1784.[168] Mackey and his fellow Mercury convicts remained on the Dunkirk for nearly three years. On 11 March 1787, he embarked on the First Fleet ship Friendship.[169]

Life in Australia (1788 – 1810)
After two years in New South Wales, Mackey travelled to Norfolk Island per the Sirius, where he disembarked on 14 March 1790.[170] Later that year, he was sentenced to receive 50 lashes as punishment for encouraging others to ask for additional free time. Despite this, by July 1791 Mackey had established himself, with 144 roods of cleared land and a two-month-old pig. He continued to accrue land. Joining other Mercury convicts, Mackey became a member of the Settlers and Landholders Society.[171] After four years on Norfolk Island, aged about 35, Mackey again joined the British army. This time, he enlisted in the 102nd Regiment of Foot (the New South Wales Corps) on 12 July 1794 (see Figure 6). He stood five feet eight inches tall and was described as having grey eyes and a long, dark face, topped with dark brown hair.[172] The following year, Governor Hunter leased Mackey ten acres of land on Norfolk Island, for a period of 14 years.[173] By the late 1790s, he was serving in the company of Captain Edward Abbott.[174] Given his service under Abbott, Mackey was likely involved in the repair of Georges Head Battery at Sydney Cove.[175]

Figure 6: Members of the NSW Corps, of whom Mackey was a member, depicted arresting Governor Bligh.[176]

Last Years in Ireland (1810 – c.1839)
On 1 March 1810, the 102nd Regiment was ordered to be ‘held in readiness to embark for England on the shortest notice’.[177] Mackey, likely wanting to formalise his relationship with Mary Page before he left NSW (and thereby allowing her to accompany him on the voyage), married her on 7 March at St Philip’s Church of England, Sydney.[178] Their marriage was timely, as the regiment received notice a week later that it would embark on ships bound for England on 10 April.[179] The regiment finally departed Australia on 12 May and arrived at Portsmouth on 24 October.[180] Mackey continued to serve in the Corps for another nine months in England. In July 1811, he was found to be ‘unfit for further Service’ and was discharged from that regiment at Horsham Barracks, Sussex.[181]

Immediately after his discharge, Mackey, was enlisted in the 12th Royal Veterans Battalion.[182] The Veterans Battalions were comprised of men no longer fit enough for front line duty. Mackey returned to his native Ireland, where the 12th was stationed.[183] Now in his late-50s, Mackey’s health was failing. After almost a years’ service in the 12th Veterans, he was discharged at Youghal, Cork, on the grounds of ‘being worn out’.[184] Curiously, Mackey’s discharge papers incorrectly note that from 1783 to 1794 (the years in between his military service) he was serving in the British marines.[185] No doubt this was an attempt by Mackey to conceal his convict past, for a contingent of marines had indeed accompanied the First Fleet to Botany Bay.[186]

Upon his discharge from the 12th Veterans, Mackey was admitted as a pensioner to the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham (see Figure 7).[187] He was granted a pension of 1 shilling 6 sixpence per day. From his pension record, it appears that Mackey died on 25 December 1839.[188] If correct, he would have been about 80 years old, making him the longest-lived Mercury convict.

Figure 7: The Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin, where Mackey was admitted as a pensioner in 1812. The hospital served as a home for retired soldiers.[189]

In many respects, Mackey is the typical Mercury convict. His baptism in 1759 closely matches the average birth year of 1760. He was convicted for his first offence in 1783, for theft, was illiterate, captured quickly after the mutiny, and later travelled to Norfolk Island, all characteristics typical of Mercury convicts. Yet, his biography reveals the many ways in which he differs from his cohort. He was the only convict to have served in the military both before and after his sentence. Such a career resulted in his being better documented than his counterparts. Information has been uncovered regarding his birth, marriage, and death, which is uncommon for Mercury convicts. Research into Mackey’s biography reveals details about his pre and post transportation life in England, another rarity for Mercury convicts. It reveals aspects of his motivations which were not uncovered by the other methods. But it is also speculative. Despite the relative abundance of sources, Mackey is not the most documented Mercury convict. There are thus many gaps and contradictions in the sources that limit the extent to which his life can be reliably and coherently narrated. Importantly, little in his biography speaks to the general characteristics or experiences of the Mercury convicts, something that can only be investigated through methods other than biography.

Conclusion
This essay has diverted from common biographical practice by applying separately the methods of biography, collective biography, and prosopography to the same topic. Comparing their findings allows the strengths and weaknesses of each to be made apparent. Prosopography is beneficial for answering questions regarding the ‘typicality’ of a group, that is, what kinds of people and characteristics are representative of a group. A biography, while possibly mentioning several people, only takes one individual as its focus. While it may contextualise the subject within his or her broader group (whether occupational, religious, political, and so on), it cannot reliably inform the general characteristics of such groups. Collective biography comes closer to offering broad generalisations of a group. However, there is always the risk of skewed conclusions from the selection of a small sample if those chosen are not representative. It can, however, reveal details about the bonds and associations between members in ways the other methodologies cannot. The application of these to the Mercury convicts confirms that, aside from their exceptional quality of having participated in a mutiny, they were not significantly different from other First and Second Fleet convicts as revealed in Gillen and Flynn.[190]

The application of these methodologies to Mercury convicts also reveals which are better suited to the exploration of certain themes within Australian convict history. Prosopography provides useful insights for themes such as labour, criminal, and health history. This is because there is enough information available for all individuals (as in the case of the convicts’ criminal histories and pre- and post-transportation occupations), or that conclusions about the group can be drawn from generalisations made in the sources (such as the general health of the convicts). Collective biography is the most useful of the three for exploring cultural and social history due to a greater emphasis on detailed qualitative examination of individual lives. It can draw attention to the common experiences and connections of individuals in ways the other methods cannot. This is most apparent in the case of the platonic and romantic relationships of Mercury convicts and their participation in other enterprises, such as theatre. While biography can potentially contribute to almost any historical theme, it is limited in its ability to inform wider historical debates.

Each method draws on different types of sampling. Where prosopography benefits from the largest sample size possible, collective biography and biography are far more selective. The nature of the sampling in the latter two can have profound impacts on the kinds of conclusions drawn. Likewise, which archives are used to document convict lives (whether those prior to transportation, after, or both) will also impact the final analysis. To focus only on those records of convicts prior to transportation would not make the analyses around such things as health, family forming, and network analysis possible. Neglecting pre-voyage archives would severely limit the extent to which the criminal lives of convicts could be properly understood.

There remains scope for future study on the Mercury convicts. The ship’s muster may reveal further details about the convicts themselves and possibly allow for the identification of any who were later sent to Australia that were missed in this study.[191] Even if the muster does not list the names of convicts transported in 1784, this research has identified at least 42 convicts on the Mercury who were not transported to Australia.[192] Performing a similar analysis on this group as done in this essay could reveal why some Mercury convicts were transported to Australia while others were not.[193] The findings from such research could contribute to one of the most fundamental debates of Australian colonial history, that is, the purpose behind the foundation of the colony of New South Wales and the selection of those to be sent on the First Fleet.[194]

Appendix 1: List of Mercury Convicts transported to Australia on the First and Second Fleets.

Name	Date of Trial	Place of Trial	Sentence	Ship
Ayres, William (alias Eyres)	23 July 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Barber, Elizabeth	11 September 1782	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Prince of Wales
Barnett, Daniel (alias Barret)	29 July 1783	Winchester	7 years	Friendship
Barrett, Thomas	11 September 1782	Old Bailey	Death to Life	Charlotte
Batley, Oten (alies Houghton Bately, John Buckley)	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Batley, Walter (alias John Rowse, Rouse, Rous)	29 October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Baughn, John (alias Baughan, Bingham, Innis, Buffin,	30 July 1783	Oxford	7 years	Friendship
Bayliss, John (alias Busley)	25 February 1784	Oxford	7 years	Friendship
Best, John	29 October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Bishop, Joseph	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Blatherhorn, William (alias Beans, Fisher)	26 February 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Branagan, James (alias Baranegan)	29 July 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Brand, Curtis (alias Bryn)	6 January 1784	Maidstone	7 years	Friendship
Brown, Thomas	29 October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Brown, William	29 July 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Bruce, Robert	29 July 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Bryant, Michael	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	14 years	Friendship
Burn, Patrick	11 August 1783	Exeter	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Burn, Simon	11 August 1783	Exeter	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Clare, George (alias Clear, Clair)	26 February 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Cox, James (alias Rolt)	11 September 1782	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Crowder, Thomas Restell	4 December 1782	Old Bailey	Death to Life	Alexander
Davis, Richard	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Day, Thomas (alias King)	October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Scarborough
Delaney, Patrick	8 March 1783	York	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Dodding, James (alias Dorren, Doran)	25 February 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Dudgeon, Elizabeth (alias Drizzen)	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Edwards, William	January 1784	Guildhall	7 years	Friendship
Fendlow, John (alias Finlow, Harvey)	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Field, William	29 July 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Garland, Francis	3 March 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Garth, Susannah (alias Gough, Grates)	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Grace, James	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Green, Hannah	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Hall, John	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Hall, Joseph	9 January 1782	Old Bailey	Death to 14 years	Charlotte
Hall, Margaret	4 December 1782	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Prince of Wales
Harris, John	15 January 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 14 years	Scarborough
Hart, Frances	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	14 years	Charlotte
Haydon, John (alias Hadon)	11 August 1783	Exeter	7 years	Charlotte
Haynes, William (alias Haines)	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Henley, Cooper (alias Handley, Handy)	8 March 1783	New Sarum, Salisbury	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Hill, Thomas	13 March 1783	Dorchester	7 years	Friendship
Hudson, John	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Hughes, Thomas	20 February 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Hussey, Samuel (alias James Hussey, Stussey)	3 March 1784	Oxford	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Jemmison/Jamison, James	19 March 1784	Maidstone	7 years	Friendship
Jones, John	23 July 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Kimes, Mary (Potten)	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Lady Juliana
Knowland, Michael (Nowland)	26 February 1783	Old Bailey	Death to Life	Scarborough
Lavell, Henry (alias Lovell)	11 September 1782	Old Bailey	Death to Life	Friendship
Le Grove, Stephen	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Limpus, Thomas	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Lloyd, John (alias Loyd, Lyde, Load)	25 February 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Mackey, James (alias Mackie, McKay)	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Martin, Thomas	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
McDale, Richard (alias McDeed, McDade, Deane)	30 April 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Friendship
McGrah, Redmund	29 October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
McNamara, William	10 September 1783	Old Bailey,	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Mills, Matthew (alias John Hill)	30 July 1783	Oxford	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Morley, Joseph	3 March 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Murphy, James	11 August 1783	Exeter	Death to 7 years	Friendship
O’Craft, John (alias Honcraft)	17 March 1783	Exeter	7 years	Charlotte
Peat, Charles	April 1783	Newgate, London	Life	Scarborough
Penny, John	25 February 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Pritchard, Thomas	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Roach, Henry	3 March 1783	Winchester	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Robinson, William	3 March 1783	Hampshire	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Ronold/Ronan, Andrew	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Ryan, John (alias Bryant)	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Sidaway, Robert	18 September 1782	Old Bailey	Death to Life	Friendship
Spence/Pearce, John	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Taylor, Henry	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship
Tenhel, James (alias John Tenhel, James Daniel)	14 January 1784	Old Bailey	7 years	Charlotte
Thody/Thodie, James (alias Ives)	3 July 1782	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Turner, John	16 April 1783	Maidstone	7 years	Friendship
Turner, Thomas	6 March 1782	Oxford	Death to 7 years	Friendship
Ware, Charlotte	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Prince of Wales
White, John	July 1782	Old Bailey	7 years	Scarborough
Williams, Peter (alias Creamer, Flagett)	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	Death to 7 years	Charlotte
Wood, Mark	29 October 1783	Old Bailey	7 years	Friendship

 

Appendix 2: Birth and Death Details of Mercury Convicts.

Name	Date of Birth / Baptism (circa)	Place of Birth / Baptism	Date of Death / Burial	Place of Death / Burial
Ayres, William	1763	Staffordshire, England
Barber, Elizabeth	1760
Barnett, Daniel	1757	Middlesex, England	15 February 1823	Windsor, NSW, Australia
Barrett, Thomas	1761		27 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Batley, Oten	9 November 1763 (baptism)	Swaffham, Norfolk, England	5 October 1794 (burial)	London, England
Batley, Walter	17 January 1762 (baptism)	Swaffham, Norfolk, England
Baughn, John	1754	Warwickshire, England	27 September 1797	St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Bayliss, John	1750	Birmingham, Warwickshire, England	30 August 1811	St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Best, John	1760	Middlesex, England	6 March 1839	Windsor, NSW, Australia
Bishop, Joseph	1764		August 1825	Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia
Blatherhorn, William	1762
Branagan, James	1758
Brand, Curtis	1764	Manfield/Mayfield, Sussex, England	15 May 1800	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Brown, Thomas	1765
Brown, William	1764		19 September 1787	Rio de Janeiro
Bruce, Robert	1754
Bryant, Michael	1767	London
Burn, Patrick	1761	Ireland	13 July 1791	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Burn, Simon	1757		5 October 1794	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Clare, George	1734	Manchester, Lancashire, England
Cox, James	1763		1791	At sea
Crowder, Thomas Restell	1755		28 November 1824	Elizabeth Street, Hobart, Tasmania
Davis, Richard	1759	Middlesex, England
Day, Thomas	25 February 1764	St Sepulchre, Holborn, London, England	2 January 1823 (burial)	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Delaney, Patrick	1762
Dodding, James	1765	Middlesex, England
Dudgeon, Elizabeth	1764
Edwards, William	1762	Bedfordshire, England
Fendlow, John	1766	Middlesex, England
Field, William	1762	Hertfordshire, England
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	1760
Garland, Francis	1764
Garth, Susannah	1763	St Giles in the Fields, Holborn, London, England
Grace, James	1769	London, England
Green, Hannah	1756
Hall, John	1757
Hall, Joseph	1759
Hall, Margaret	1765
Harris, John	1759
Hart, Frances	1751
Haydon, John	1759
Haynes, William	1755	Middlesex, England
Henley, Cooper	1754	Yorkshire, England
Hill, Thomas	1759	Shrewsbury, England
Hudson, John	1774	Middlesex, England
Hughes, Thomas	1763	Berkshire, England
Hussey, Samuel	1754	Oxfordshire, England
Jemmison/Jamison, James	1767	Kent, England
Jones, John	1764
Kimes, Mary	1769
Knowland, Michael	1758		31 October 1828	Wilberforce, NSW, Australia
Lavell, Henry	1764	Middlesex, England
Le Grove, Stephen	1758	Middlesex, England
Limpus, Thomas	1762		1801	Norfolk Island
Lloyd, John	1765	Middlesex, England	27 September 1811	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Mackey, James	14 September 1759 (baptism)	St Mary’s, Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Martin, Thomas	1768		26 September 1822	St John's, Parramatta, NSW, Australia
McDale, Richard	1756	Strabane, West Tyrone, Northern Ireland
McGrah, Redmund	1759		20 July 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia
McNamara, William	1766	Ireland
Mills, Matthew	1763	Berkshire, England
Morley, Joseph	1761		1822	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Murphy, James	1743	Maybe Braunton, Devon	20 May 1804	Norfolk Island
O’Craft, John	1753
Peat, Charles	25 November 1759	St George, Hanover Square, London, England	1 June 1813	Fort William, Calcutta, India
Penny, John	1760		11 April 1799	St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Pritchard, Thomas	1761
Roach, Henry	1764
Robinson, William	1766
Ronold, Andrew	1755
Ryan, John	1760		1815	Parramatta, NSW, Australia
Sidaway, Robert	1759	Shoreditch, Middlesex, England	13 October 1809	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Spence, John	1764	Middlesex, England
Taylor, Henry	1754	Derbyshire, England	30 May 1806	Norfolk Island
Tenhel, James	1766
Thody, James	1760	Middlesex, England	1 November 1795	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Turner, John	1743	Kent, England
Turner, Thomas	1757	Berkshire, England	18 March 1788 (burial)	Sydney, NSW, Australia
Ware, Charlotte	1761		18 February 1839	Campbelltown, NSW, Australia
White, John	1746		17 September 1820	Second Branch (Colo River), NSW, Australia
Williams, Peter	1767	Wapping, London, England
Wood, Mark	1763	Shropshire, England

Appendix 3: Occupations of Mercury Convicts, Pre, and Post Transportation.

Name	Pre-Transportation	Post-Transportation
Ayres, William	Sadler
Barber, Elizabeth	Book stitcher	Wife
Barnett, Daniel	Waterman	Farmer
Barrett, Thomas		Prisoner
Batley, Oten	Seaman	Labourer/Farmer
Batley, Walter	Bricklayer/Servant	Bricklayer
Baughn, John	Cabinet Maker	Carpenter/Millwright/Farmer
Bayliss, John	Silversmith	Labourer/Farmer/Carpenter
Best, John		Farmer/Clerk/Overseer
Bishop, Joseph	Fisherman/Sawyer	Farmer/Labourer
Blatherhorn, William	Sweep?	Constable/Farmer
Branagan, James		Farmer
Brand, Curtis		Farmer/Carpenter
Brown, Thomas	Servant
Brown, William
Bruce, Robert		Farmer
Bryant, Michael
Burn, Patrick	Baker	Game Killer
Burn, Simon	Stocking Weaver	Timber Getter
Clare, George	Shoemaker	Shoemaker
Cox, James	Seaman
Crowder, Thomas Restell		Farmer
Davis, Richard	Printer	Labourer
Day, Thomas
Delaney, Patrick
Dodding, James	Seaman	Farmer/Under Goaler
Dudgeon, Elizabeth		Wife
Edwards, William	Brickmaker
Fendlow, John	Whitesmith	Farmer
Field, William		Farmer
Flinn/Flynn, Edward		Servant/Labourer/Fisherman
Garland, Francis
Garth, Susannah		Wife
Grace, James	Shoemaker	Farmer
Green, Hannah		Wife
Hall, John	Seaman	Farmer
Hall, Joseph		Farmer
Hall, Margaret		Wife
Harris, John		Farmer/Constable/Inn Keeper
Hart, Frances	Mantua Maker	Wife
Haydon, John		Farmer
Haynes, William	Cabinet Maker
Henley, Cooper	Weaver	Prisoner
Hill, Thomas	Breeches Maker
Hudson, John	Chimney Sweep
Hughes, Thomas		Labourer/Landholder
Hussey, Samuel		Farmer/Constable
Jemmison/Jamison, James		Prisoner
Jones, John		Farmer
Kimes, Mary
Knowland, Michael
Lavell, Henry	Ivory Turner
Le Grove, Stephen	Waterman	Seaman
Limpus, Thomas		Farmer
Lloyd, John		Fisherman
Mackey, James	Labourer/Weaver/Soldier	Soldier
Martin, Thomas	Weaver	Farmer
McDale, Richard	Shoemaker/Soldier	Farmer
McGrah, Redmund	Seaman	Prisoner
McNamara, William	Seaman
Mills, Matthew
Morley, Joseph	Silk Dyer	Farmer/Constable
Murphy, James	Shoemaker	Farmer
O’Craft, John
Peat, Charles	Naval Seaman	Farmer/Seaman/Dealer
Penny, John	Jeweller	Farmer
Pritchard, Thomas
Roach, Henry		Labourer
Robinson, William	Seaman	Farmer
Ronold, Andrew	Seaman?
Ryan, John	Silk Weaver	Farmer
Sidaway, Robert	Watchcase Maker	Baker/Publican/Theatre Manager
Spence, John		Farmer
Taylor, Henry	Stocking Weaver	Farmer/Overseer
Tenhel, James		Boatman
Thody, James	Plasterer	Plasterer
Turner, John
Turner, Thomas
Ware, Charlotte		Landholder
White, John
Williams, Peter		Farmer
Wood, Mark	Shoemaker

 

Appendix 4: List of Mercury Convicts with (or Suspected) Prior Criminal Convictions.*

Name	Date of Trial	Place of Trial	Crime	Sentence
Batley, Oten	(1) 30 May 1781 (2) 23 July 1783	(1) Old Bailey (2) Old Bailey	(1) Theft of a handkerchief (2) Theft of a linen handkerchief	(1) Imprisonment (2) Whipping
Blatherhorn, William*	21 October 1778	Old Bailey	Stealing sugar	Naval training
Fendlow, John*	15 May 1782	Old Bailey	Theft of a handkerchief	Whipped, 12 months hard labour
Hart, Frances*	9 January 1782	Old Bailey	Stealing printed calico	Acquitted, not guilty
Jones, John	10 December 1783	Old Bailey	Return from transportation (abord the Swift)	Death
Limpus, Thomas	(1) 31 October 1777 (2) 8 October 1782	(1) Old Bailey (2) Westminster	(1) Theft of a handkerchief (2) Theft of a handkerchief	(1) 3 years hard labour (2) 7 years transportation
McGrah, Redmund	10 September 1783	Old Bailey	Stealing a pair of linen sheets	Whipping
Peat, Charles	5 December 1781	Old Bailey	Highway robbery and assault	Death
Pritchard, Thomas*	20 October 1779	Old Bailey	Stealing five shillings	Whipping, military naval duty
Sidaway, Robert	(1) 3 June 1778 (2) 10 April 1782	(1) Old Bailey (2) Old Bailey	(1) Theft of various goods (2) Theft of a trunk	(1) Imprisonment, hard labour (2) Not guilty, acquitted
Ware, Charlotte*	(1) 3 December 1777 (2) 13 September 1780 (3) 25 April 1781 (4) 11 September 1782	(1) Old Bailey (2) Old Bailey (3) Old Bailey (4) Old Bailey	(1) Unknown (2) Theft of silk ribband (3) Theft of five pieces of silk ribband (4) Theft of a black coat	(1) Branded, imprisonment 6 months (2) Whipping (3) Whipping, imprisonment 3 months (4) Hard labour, 12 months
Wood, Mark *	9 December 1778	Old Bailey	Theft of assorted items	Hard labour, 3 years

*There is some doubt that these convicts are the same person mentioned in these trials.

Appendix 5: When and Where Recaptured, and Whether Reconvicted at the Exeter Special Commission.

Name	Date of Recapture	Place of Recapture	Whether Reconvicted at Exeter, 24 May 1784
Ayres, William	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Barber, Elizabeth	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Barnett, Daniel	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Barrett, Thomas		Stoke Demeral	Yes
Batley, Oten		Plymouth	Yes
Batley, Walter			No
Baughn, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Bayliss, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Best, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Bishop, Joseph	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Blatherhorn, William		On shore, Devon	Yes
Branagan, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	Yes
Brand, Curtis	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Brown, Thomas	2 May 1784	Exeter	Yes
Brown, William		Devon	Yes
Bruce, Robert	13 April 1784	Torbay	Yes
Bryant, Michael	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Burn, Patrick	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Burn, Simon	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Clare, George	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Cox, James		Devon	Yes
Crowder, Thomas Restell			No
Davis, Richard	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Day, Thomas	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Delaney, Patrick	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Dodding, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Dudgeon, Elizabeth	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Edwards, William	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Fendlow, John	13 April 1784		No
Field, William	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Garland, Francis		Plymouth Dock	Yes
Garth, Susannah	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Grace, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Green, Hannah	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Hall, John	April 1784	Dartmouth	Yes
Hall, Joseph		Exeter	No
Hall, Margaret	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Harris, John		Hammersmith turnpike, London	No
Hart, Frances	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Haydon, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	Yes
Haynes, William	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Henley, Cooper	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Hill, Thomas	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Hudson, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Hughes, Thomas	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Hussey, Samuel	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Jemmison/Jamison, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Jones, John		Exeter	Yes
Kimes, Mary	June 1784	Bristol	No
Knowland, Michael	4 May 1784	Bath	No
Lavell, Henry	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Le Grove, Stephen	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Limpus, Thomas		Devon	Yes
Lloyd, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Mackey, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Martin, Thomas		Devon	Yes
McDale, Richard	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
McGrah, Redmund	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
McNamara, William	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Mills, Matthew	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Morley, Joseph	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Murphy, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
O’Craft, John		Stoke Dameral, Plymouth	Yes
Peat, Charles	4 June 1784	Smithfield, London	No
Penny, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Pritchard, Thomas	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Roach, Henry		On shore.	Yes
Robinson, William		Plymouth Dock.	Yes
Ronold, Andrew	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Ryan, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Sidaway, Robert		Totnes	No
Spence, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Taylor, Henry	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Tenhel, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Thody, James	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Turner, John	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Turner, Thomas	13 April 1784	Torbay	No
Ware, Charlotte	14 April 1784	Caught scrambling down the side of a grounded ship.	No
White, John	July 1784	London	No
Williams, Peter		Devon	Yes
Wood, Mark	13 April 1784	Torbay	No

Appendix 6: Hulks to Which Mercury Convicts were Assigned, and their Behaviour on Board.

Name	Name of Hulk	Behaviour on Board
Ayres, William (alias Eyres)	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Barber, Elizabeth	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Barnett, Daniel (alias Barret)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Barrett, Thomas	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Batley, Oten (alies Houghton Bately, John Buckley)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Batley, Walter (alias John Rowse, Rouse, Rous)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Baughn, John (alias Baughan, Bingham, Innis, Buffin,	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Bayliss, John (alias Busley)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Best, John	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Bishop, Joseph	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Blatherhorn, William (alias Beans, Fisher)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Branagan, James (alias Baranegan)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Brand, Curtis (alias Bryn)	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Brown, Thomas	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Brown, William	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Bruce, Robert	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Bryant, Michael	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Burn, Patrick	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Burn, Simon	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Clare, George (alias Clear, Clair)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Cox, James (alias Rolt)	Dunkirk	Remarkably well.
Crowder, Thomas Restell	Justitia
Davis, Richard	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Day, Thomas (alias King)	Fortunee
Delaney, Patrick	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Dodding, James (alias Dorren, Doran)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Dudgeon, Elizabeth (alias Drizzen)	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Edwards, William	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Fendlow, John (alias Finlow, Harvey)
Field, William	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Garland, Francis	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Garth, Susannah (alias Gough, Grates)	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Grace, James	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Green, Hannah	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Hall, John	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Hall, Joseph	Dunkirk	Tolerably well.
Hall, Margaret	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Harris, John	Ceres
Hart, Frances	Dunkirk	Better than formerly.
Haydon, John (alias Hadon)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Haynes, William (alias Haines)	Dunkirk	Remarkably well.
Henley, Cooper (alias Handley, Handy)	Dunkirk	Remarkably well.
Hill, Thomas	Dunkirk
Hudson, John	Dunkirk	Very well.
Hughes, Thomas	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Hussey, Samuel (alias James Hussey, Stussey)	Dunkirk	Remarkably well.
Jemmison/Jamison, James	Dunkirk	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Jones, John	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Kimes, Mary (Potten)
Knowland, Michael (Nowland)	Fortunee
Lavell, Henry (alias Lovell)	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Le Grove, Stephen	Friendship	Quiet
Limpus, Thomas	Charlotte	Quiet
Lloyd, John (alias Loyd, Lyde, Load)	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Mackey, James (alias Mackie, McKay)	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Martin, Thomas	Charlotte	Sometimes troublesome.
McDale, Richard (alias McDeed, McDade, Deane)	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
McGrah, Redmund	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
McNamara, William	Friendship	A dangerous Fellow, full of low cunning.
Mills, Matthew (alias John Hill)	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Morley, Joseph	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Murphy, James	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
O’Craft, John (alias Honcraft)	Charlotte	Remarkably well.
Peat, Charles	Scarborough
Penny, John	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Pritchard, Thomas	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Roach, Henry	Charlotte	Remarkably well.
Robinson, William	Charlotte	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Ronold/Ronan, Andrew	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Ryan, John (alias Bryant)	Friendship	In general tolerably well behaved, but troublesome at times.
Sidaway, Robert	Friendship	Remarkably well.
Spence/Pearce, John	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Taylor, Henry	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Tenhel, James (alias John Tenhel, James Daniel)	Charlotte	Very quiet.
Thody/Thodie, James (alias Ives)	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Turner, John	Friendship	Remarkably well.
Turner, Thomas	Friendship	Troublesome at times.
Ware, Charlotte	Prince of Wales	Better than formerly.
White, John	Fortunee
Williams, Peter (alias Creamer, Flagett)	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.
Wood, Mark	Dunkirk	Troublesome at times.

Appendix 7: List of Mercury Convicts who Reoffended after the Mutiny.*

Name	Date of Trial / Offence	Place of Trial / Offence	Crime	Sentence
Ayres, William	(1) 2 February 1789 (2) 13 April 1789	(1) Sydney (2) Sydney	(1) ‘attempting to impose a falsehood’ (2) refusing to obey orders	(1) 50 lashes (2) 25 lashes
Barber, Elizabeth	(1) 18 July 1787 (2) 24 July 1787 (3) 1 August 1787 (4) 13 August 1787 (5) 20 October 1787	(1) Friendship (2) Friendship (3) Friendship (4) Friendship (5) Friendship	(1) abusing the ship’s doctor     (5) fighting with Elizabeth Dudgeon	(1) leg irons (2) leg irons (3) leg irons (4) leg irons (5) leg irons
Barrett, Thomas	27 February 1788	Sydney	Theft	Death
Blatherhorn, William	10 May 1790	Norfolk Island	Concealing fish	50 lashes
Branagan, James	22 March 1790	Norfolk Island	Being drunk, starting a fire	Confinement in guard house
Burn, Simon	8 January 1791	Sydney	Fighting with soldiers	Serve in a gang
Clare, George	June 1789	Sydney	Insolence	50 lashes
Cox, James	28 March 1791	Sydney	Escaped from the colony
Crowder, Thomas Restell	(1) 29 March 1785 (2) 16 November 1788	(1) Bristol Quarter Sessions (2) Sydney	(1) Grand larceny (2) Disturbing the peace	(1) Death (2) Reprimanded
Dudgeon, Elizabeth	(1) 9 June 1787 (2) 3 July 1787 (3) 5 July 1787 (4) 1 August 1787 (5) 20 October 1787	(1) Friendship (2) Friendship (3) Friendship (4) Friendship (5) Friendship	(1) Fighting (2) Found in men’s quarters (3) Impertinence (4) Unknown (5) Fighting	(1) Ten days in irons (2) Leg irons (3) Flogging with a rope (4) Leg irons (5) Leg irons
Edwards, William	(1) 3 June 1789 (2) 15 August 1789 (3) 14 October 1789 (4) 25 February 1790	(1) Sydney (2) Sydney (3) Sydney (4) Sydney	(1) Attempt to defraud stores (2) Breaking and entering (3) Insolence (4) Theft	(1) Reduced rations (2) 50 lashes (3) 50 lashes (4) 100 lashes
Fendlow, John	4 July 1796	Sydney	Murder	Death by hanging
Flinn, Edward	May 1810	Hawkesbury	Burglary	Death to Life (NSW)
Hall, John	May 1790	Norfolk Island	Concealing fish	50 lashes
Hall, Joseph	27 February 1788	Sydney	Theft of food	Death to banishment, about two months
Hall, Margaret	(1) 9 June 1787 (2) 22 July 1787	(1) Friendship (2) Friendship	(1) Fighting (2) Unknown	(1) leg irons (2) leg irons
Harris, John	26 May 1784	Old Bailey	Return from transportation	Death to Life
Haydon, John	(1) 30 April 1788 (2) January 1789	(1) Sydney (2) Rose Hill	(1) Theft from storehouse (2) Absence from work	(1) Acquitted (2) 100 lashes
Hill, Thomas	12 February 1788	Sydney	Theft of a biscuit	Leg irons, eight days, on an island, bread, and water diet
Hudson, John	15 February 1791	Norfolk Island	Breaking curfew	50 lashes
Kimes, Mary	18 April 1787	Old Bailey	Shoplifting	Death to 7 years
Knowland, Michael
Lavell, Henry	(1) 23 December 1787 (2) 27 February 1788 (3) February 1791	(1) Friendship (2) Sydney (3) Norfolk Island	(1) Theft of beer and wood (2) Plot to rob stores (3) Telling a lie	(1) Unknown (2) Death to banishment (3) Unknown
Le Grove, Stephen	16 March 1789	Sydney	Absent from work	50 lashes
Mackey, James	November 1790	Norfolk Island	Encouraging others to ask for extra time off	50 lashes
Martin, Thomas	6 September 1788	Sydney	Theft and attempted bribery	200 lashes
McDale, Richard	30 April 1788	Sydney	Theft of food	Acquitted
McNamara, William	(1) 24 July 1787 (2) 27 April 1790	(1) Friendship (2) Norfolk Island	(1) Impertinence (2) Unknown	(1) Leg irons (2) 50 lashes to chained to a grindstone
Morley, Joseph	20 July 1789	Sydney	Illegally buying items from a soldier	100 lashes
Peat, Charles	7 July 1784	Old Bailey	Return from transportation	Life
Robinson, William	August 1789	Norfolk Island	Playing cards on a Sunday	81 lashes (out of 100)
Ryan, John	27 February 1788	Sydney	Robbing stores	300 lashes
Sidaway, Robert	December 1787	Friendship	Impudence to an officer	1 month in chains
Spence, John	(1) 11 September 1789 (2) 18 November 1790	(1) Sydney (2) Norfolk Island	(1) Drunkenness (2) Stealing potatoes	(1) 25 lashes (2) Confinement
Tenhel, James	11 February 1788	Sydney	Theft of bread	1 week in irons, bread and water
Turner, John	6 September 1788	Sydney	Found in possession of rum	Reprimanded
Ware, Charlotte	(1) June 1787 (2) 9 February 1789	(1) Friendship (2) Sydney	(1) Breaking through bulkhead (2) Beating another convict	(1) Irons, 10 days (2) 50 lashes
White, John
Williams, Peter	(1) 12 September 1789 (2) 11 June 1790	(1) Sydney (2) Norfolk Island	(1) Concealing the truth (2) Neglect of duty	(1) 25 lashes (2) 50 lashes
Wood, Mark	13 October 1789	Sydney	Insolence	Made to apologise, severely reprimanded

*Excluding those remanded to former sentences at Exeter, 24 May 1784, after the Mercury mutiny.

Appendix 8: List of Mercury Convicts Sent to Norfolk Island.

Name	Date of Departure from Sydney	Ship
Batley, Oten (alies Houghton Bately, John Buckley)	January 1790	Supply
Batley, Walter (alias John Rowse, Rouse, Rous)	1789	Supply
Bayliss, John (alias Busley)	c.1790	Sirius or Supply
Best, John	4 March 1790	Sirius
Blatherhorn, William (alias Beans, Fisher)	4 March 1790	Supply
Branagan, James (alias Baranegan)	4 March 1790	Sirius
Bruce, Robert	4 March 1790	Sirius
Burn, Patrick?	13 March 1790 (arrived)
Cox, James (alias Rolt)?	4 November 1791 (arrived)
Crowder, Thomas Restell	17 February 1789	Supply
Davis, Richard?	11 November 1791 (arrived)
Dodding, James (alias Dorren, Doran)	4 March 1790	Sirius
Fendlow, John (alias Finlow, Harvey)	4 March 1790	Supply
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	4 March 1790	Sirius
Garth, Susannah (alias Gough, Grates)	14 February 1788	Supply
Grace, James	4 March 1790	Sirius
Hall, John	4 March 1790	Supply
Hall, Joseph	4 March 1790	Sirius
Hall, Margaret	7 January 1790	Supply
Harris, John	7 January 1790	Supply
Hart, Frances	17 February 1789	Supply
Haydon, John (alias Hadon)	4 March 1790	Sirius
Hudson, John	4 March 1790	Sirius
Hussey, Samuel (alias James Hussey, Stussey)	2 October 1788	Golden Grove
Jones, John	17 February 1788	Supply
Knowland, Michael (Nowland)	1 August 1790	Surprize
Lavell, Henry (alias Lovell)	8 January 1790	Supply
Limpus, Thomas	4 March 1790	Sirius
Mackey, James (alias Mackie, McKay)	4 March 1790	Sirius
McDale, Richard (alias McDeed, McDade, Deane)	4 March 1790	Sirius
McNamara, William	4 March 1790	Sirius
Mills, Matthew (alias John Hill)	11 November 1789	Supply
Murphy, James	4 March 1790	Sirius
Penny, John	7 August 1790	Surprize
Robinson, William	17 February 1789	Supply
Spence/Pearce, John	7 January 1790	Supply
Taylor, Henry	17 February 1789	Supply
Ware, Charlotte	4 March 1790	Sirius
Williams, Peter (alias Creamer, Flagett)	8 January 1790	Supply

 

Appendix 9: Marriages and Relationships of Mercury Convicts.

Name	Date of Marriage / Relationship	Place of Marriage / Relationship	Spouse	Children
Ayres, William	17 July 1790	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Mary Kimes
Barber, Elizabeth	17 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Thomas Brown	Thomas (23 Nov 1788), David (29 Jan 1790), Elizabeth (19 Jun 1791)
Barnett, Daniel	16 June 1793	Parramatta, NSW, Australia	Ann Baker	Daniel (1796)
Barrett, Thomas
Batley, Oten
Batley, Walter	21 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Martha Baker
Baughn, John	17 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Mary Clever	Charles (Bpt 18 Jul 1790)
Bayliss, John			Elizabeth Douglas	Rose (1794)
Best, John	(1) c.1791 (2) 16 June 1817	(1) Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia (2) Castlereagh, NSW, Australia	(1) Grace Mattocks (2) Rebecca Chippenham	Mary Wheeler (1808)?
Bishop, Joseph	13 November 1790	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Ann Dring
Blatherhorn, William	c.1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Mary Randall	Three
Branagan, James
Brand, Curtis	20 November 1791	St John's, Parramatta, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Sulley
Brown, Thomas
Brown, William
Bruce, Robert	c.1790	Rose Hill, NSW, Australia	Caroline Laycock (Haylock)	Elizabeth Mason Haylock (21 Mar 1790)
Bryant, Michael
Burn, Patrick	(1) Unknown (2) 29 July 1790	(1) Sydney, NSW, Australia (2) Sydney, NSW, Australia	(1) Ann Smith (2) Mary Newton	(1) Thomas (15 Oct 1789)
Burn, Simon	10 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Frances Anderson
Clare, George	12 July 1789	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Catharine Smith
Cox, James
Crowder, Thomas Restell	(1) 7 June 1788 (2) 22 December 1799	(1) Sydney, NSW, Australia (2) Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	(1) Sarah Davis (2) Mary Christmas	(1) Elizabeth (Jan 1794) (2) Mary (1799), Thomas Russel Crowder (28 Oct 1810)
Davis, Richard
Day, Thomas	30 August 1790	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Mary Clayton	Thomas (1797)
Delaney, Patrick
Dodding, James	c.1794	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Thackery
Dudgeon, Elizabeth	24 April 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	George Clayton
Edwards, William
Fendlow, John			Eleanor Byrnes
Field, William	14 July 1790	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Robertson
Flinn/Flynn, Edward	28 September 1789	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Sarah Ault
Garland, Francis	24 December 1791	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Sarah Bartlam
Garth, Susannah	November 1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Edward Garth	Mary Anne (16 Oct 1789), James (1791), Edward (1795), John (c.1800), William (c.1801), Susannah (c.1803), Richard (c.1807)
Grace, James	1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Smith
Green, Hannah	10 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	William Haynes
Hall, John	c.1794	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Farrell
Hall, Joseph
Hall, Margaret	(1) 13 February 1788 (2) c.1806	(1) St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia (2) Sydney, NSW, Australia	(1) Peter Williams (2) Nathaniel Fowler
Harris, John	c.1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Mary Green	John, Elizabeth (1795), Hannah
Hart, Frances	13 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	William Robinson
Haydon, John
Haynes, William	10 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Hannah Green
Henley, Cooper
Hill, Thomas
Hudson, John
Hughes, Thomas
Hussey, Samuel	c.1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Frances Ann Hughes
Jemmison/Jamison, James
Jones, John
Kimes, Mary	17 July 1790	Sydney, NSW, Australia	William Ayres
Knowland, Michael	c.1791	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Richards	William (1792), Michael (1794), Henry (1796), Elizabeth (1798) Ann (1801), William (1804), Edward (1806), Mary (1807), Sarah (1814)
Lavell, Henry
Le Grove, Stephen
Limpus, Thomas
Lloyd, John
Mackey, James	7 March 1810	St Philip’s, Sydney, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Steel
Martin, Thomas	24 June 1792	St Luke's, Parramatta, NSW, Australia	Mary Ann Hugo	Elizabeth (1797)
McDale, Richard
McGrah, Redmund
McNamara, William			Sarah Beaxon?	William (Bpt 2 January 1796)?
Mills, Matthew
Morley, Joseph	19 December 1790	St Luke's, Parramatta, NSW, Australia	Mary Gosling
Murphy, James	c.1793	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	Susanna Pigott/Pickett
O’Craft, John
Peat, Charles	(1) 6 January 1779 (2) 22 February 1788	(1) St George, Hanover Square, London, England (2) Sydney, NSW, Australia	(1) Mary Cannon (2) Ann Mullan	Charles (Bpt. 25 Dec 1789), Nancy (Bpt. 1792), George (Bpt. 1794), William (Bpt. 1799), Elizabeth (1797).
Penny, John				Three
Pritchard, Thomas
Roach, Henry	23 August 1790	St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia	Elizabeth Holloway
Robinson, William	13 February 1788	St Phillip's, Sydney, NSW, Australia	Frances Hart
Ronold, Andrew
Ryan, John
Sidaway, Robert	c.1806	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Mary Marshall
Spence, John
Taylor, Henry			Hannah Hawkins
Tenhel, James
Thody, James	13 November 1770	St Luke, Finsbury, Islington, London	Anne Furrance	James Stephen (1771), Samuel (1773)
Turner, John
Turner, Thomas
Ware, Charlotte	c.1790	Norfolk Island, NSW, Australia	John Hayes	One
White, John
Williams, Peter	13 February 1788	Sydney, NSW, Australia	Margaret Hall
Wood, Mark

 

Acknowledgements
This research, and the internship that produced it, would not have been possible without the generous support and guidance of a great many people. I would like to thank Laurence Brown who, despite the chaos and uncertainty brought about by a global pandemic, worked persistently and tirelessly to find me an internship host and to help me get as much out of my placement as possible. He was, of course, supported by the wonderful ANIP Team, to who I also owe my gratitude. Likewise, I am heavily indebted to Professor Melanie Nolan, who with little notice agreed to host me as an intern at the National Centre of Biography. I have benefitted immensely from her guidance and supervision. The topic for this project was conceived by Christine Fernon who, through her diligent and careful reading on the First Fleet, noted that a study of the Mercury convicts would make for an interesting and worthwhile investigative exercise. Christine’s support throughout this project has been most valuable. She provided me with many possible avenues of inquiry and was always available for me to refer to when I needed to verify something.

While this research is my own, I have been immensely privileged to have received feedback and advice from numerous historians, many of them specialists in the field of convict history. For discussing with me her previous research on Mercury convicts, I would like to thank Emma Christopher. The historiography section of this report benefitted greatly from the close review of Jennifer Bird and Babette Smith. I was incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to work with Rebecca Kippen, who is a leader in the field of convict demography. Her kindly agreeing to supply a graph was a much-appreciated contribution to this research. Feedback from Nicholas Brown assisted greatly in prompting me to frame this research in its wider contexts and to tease out its implications, potential or otherwise, for Australian historiography. Of those not already named, I received excellent feedback from Malcolm Allbrook, Joshua Black, Samuel Furphy, Tom Gardner, Nichola Garvey, Nichole McLennan, James Watson, and Stephen Wilks, for which I am most thankful. For sharing her expertise on convict soldiers, I am indebted to Patricia Downes.

Bibliography

Appendix

• Baptism record of Oughton Batley, 9 November 1763, PD 52/479, Norfolk Record Office (NRO), Norwich.
• Burial record of Oughton Battley, 5 October 1794, P69/GIS/A/003/MS06420/003, London Metropolitan Archive (LMA), London.
• Baptism record of Walter Batley, 17 January 1762, PD 52/479, NRO, Norwich.
• Baptism record of Thomas Green Day, 3 March 1764, P69/SEP/A/002/MS07220/002, LMA, London.
• Baptisms of James McKey, 14 September 1759, Microfilm 07228/01, NLI, Dublin.
• Entry for Richd McDeed, 7 October 1777, WO 116 – Disability and Out-Pensions, Admissions, Piece 7 – 1774-1782 (Cavalry and Infantry), p. 72, TNA, Kew.
• Baptism of Charles Peat, 17 December 1759, STA/PR/4/23, City of Westminster Archives Centre (CWAC), London.
• Burial of Charles Peat, 1 June 1813, N-1-9, p. 327, The British Library, London.
• Marriage of Charles Peat and Mary Cannon, 6 January 1779, STC/PR/5/9, CWAC, London.

Manuscripts
British Library

• Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette.
• Exeter Flying Post.
• The Derby Mercury.

 

City of Westminster Archives Centre

• STC/PR – St Clement Danes, parish registers

 

Devon Records Office

• QS32/63 – Devon Quarter Sessions, Easter 1784.

 

London Metropolitan Archive

• The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913 (www.oldbaileyonline.org)
• Old Bailey Sessions: Sessions Papers - Justices' Working Documents (www.londonlives.org).

 

National Archives of the United Kingdom

• ADM 1 – Admiralty, and Ministry of Defence, Navy Department: Correspondence and Papers.
• ADM 36 – Admiralty: Royal Navy Ships' Musters (Series I).
• HO 10 – Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania: Records.
• HO 13 – Home Office: Criminal Entry Books, 1782-1871.
• HO 42 – Home Office: Domestic Correspondence, George III.
• HO 47 – Home Office: Judges' Reports on Criminals, 1784-1830.
• HO 77 – Home Office: Newgate Prison Calendar, Piece 1.
• T 1 – Treasury: Treasury Board Papers and In-Letters.
• WO 12 – Commissary General of Musters Office and successors: General Muster Books and Pay Lists.
• WO 25 – Description and Succession Books (Regimental).
• WO 118 – Royal Hospital, Kilmainham: Pension Admission Books.
• WO 119 – Royal Hospital, Kilmainham: Pensioners' Discharge Documents (Certificates of Service).

 

National Library of Australia

• Society of Australian Genealogists Series 0090 – Registers of St Philip’s Church of England, Sydney.
• MS 4567 – Journal of Arthur Bowes Smyth, 27 February 1788.

 

National Library of Ireland

• Microfilm 07228/01 – Baptisms 25 September 1752 to 02 September 1798, St James, Dublin.
• James Malton, Old Soldiers Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin, February 1794, plate.

 

National Maritime Museum

• BHC0589 – William John Huggins, HMS 'Mercury' cuts out the French gunboat Leda from Rovigno, 1 April 1809.

 

New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages

• V18391129 23A – Charlotte Weare, 18 February 1839.
• V1788117 4 – James Jamieson, 10 June 1788.

 

New South Wales State Archives and Records Authority

• NRS 898 – Colonial Secretary, Special Bundles 1794-1825.

 

State Library of New South Wales

• Call Number Safe 1/27a – Collection 03: Ralph Clark journal kept on the Friendship during a voyage to Botany Bay and Norfolk Island, and on the Gorgon returning to England.
• ML 1003 – Francis Greenway, Item 2: [Scene inside Newgate Prison], 1812, oil on canvas, timber framed.
• SV8/Norf I/4 – George Raper, The Settlement on Norfolk Island, May 16th 1790, 1790, watercolour.
• Safe 4/5 – Artist unknown, The arrest of Governor Bligh, 1808, Drawing, Safe 4/5, Mitchell Library.

 

Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office

• RGD35 – Registers of Deaths in Hobart, Launceston and Country Districts.

 

Yale Center for British Arts

• B1976.7130 – Thomas Luny, The Port of London, 1798, oil on canvas, Paul Mellon Collection.

 

Printed Manuscripts

• Collins, David. An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales, from its First Settlement in January 1788 to August 1801. London: Cadell & Davies, 1804.
• White, John. Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales: with sixty-five plates of non descript animals, birds, lizards, serpents, curious cones of trees and other natural productions. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 2001.

 

Secondary Literature

• Alexander, Alison, ed. Convict Lives at the George Town Female Factory. Hobart: Convict Women’s Press, 2014.
• Anderson, Clare, ed. A Global History of Convicts and Penal Colonies. London: Bloomsbury, 2018.
• Anderson, Clare. “Transnational histories of penal transportation: Punishment, labour and governance in the British imperial world, 1788–1939.” Australian Historical Studies 47, no. 3 (2016): 381-397.
• Atkinson, Alan. The Europeans in Australia, Volume One. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2016.
• Bateson, Charles. The Convict Ships, 1787-1868. Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson 1959.
• Birt, Sarah. “Women, Guilds and the Tailoring Trades: The Occupational Training of Merchant Taylors’ Company Apprentices in Early Modern London.” The London Journal (2020): 1-19.
• Cahill, Jack. Forgotten Patriots: Canadian Rebels on Australia’s Convict Shores. Toronto: Robin Bass Studio, 1999.
• Caine, Barbara. Biography and History. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
• Causer, Tim. Memorandoms by James Martin: An Astonishing Escape from Early New South Wales. London: UCL Press, 2017.
• Christopher, Emma. “Steal a handkerchief, see the world: the trans-oceanic voyaging of Thomas Limpus.” In Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective, edited by Ann Curthoys and Marilyn Lake, 77-88. Canberra: ANU E Press, 2005.
• Clark, Manning. “The Origins of the Convicts Transported to Eastern Australia 1787-1852.” Historical Studies Australia and New Zealand 7, no. 26 (1956): 121-35.
• Cobley, John. Sydney Cove, 1789-1790. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1963.
• Cobley, John. The Convicts 1788-1792: A Study of One-in-Twenty Sample. Surry Hills, NSW: Wentworth Press, 1965.
• Cobley, John. The Crimes of the First Fleet Convicts. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1970.
• Cowman, Krista. “Collective Biography.” In Research Methods for History, edited by Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire, 83-100. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.
• Damousi, Joy. Depraved and Disorderly: Female Convicts, Sexuality and Gender in Colonial Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Damrosch, Leo. The Club: Johnson, Boswell, and the Friends Who Shaped an Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
• De Vito, Christian G., and Alex Lichtenstein. Global Convict Labour. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
• Dunk, James. Bedlam at Botany Bay. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2019.
• Eastley, Robyn. “Using the records of the Tasmanian Convict Department.” Tasmanian Historical Studies 9, no. 2004 (2004): 139-142.
• Fairburn, Miles. “The Problem of Establishing Similarities and Differences – Of Lumping and Splitting.” In Social History: Problems, Strategies and Methods, edited by Miles Fairburn, 112-144. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
• Flynn, Michael. The Second Fleet: Britain’s Grim Convict Armada of 1790. Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1993.
• Foxhall, Katherine. “From Convicts to Colonists: The Health of Prisoners and the Voyage to Australia, 1823-53.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 39, no. 1 (2011): 1-19.
• Frost, Lucy, and Alice Meredith Hodgson, eds. Convict Lives at the Launceston Female Factory. Hobart: Convict Women’s Press, 2013.
• Frost, Lucy, and Colette McAlpine, eds. From the Edges of Empire: Convict Women from Beyond the British Isles. Hobart: Convict Women’s Press, 2015.
• Frost, Lucy, and Hamish Maxwell-Stewart, eds. Chain Letters: Narrating Convict Lives. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2001.
• Frost, Lucy, ed. Convict Lives at the Ross Female Factory. Hobart: Convict Women’s Press, 2011.
• Frost, Lucy. “The Politics of Writing Convict Lives: Academic Research, State Archives and Family History.” Life Writing 8, no. 1 (2011): 19-33.
• Frost, Lucy. Scottish Convicts Exiled Beyond the Seas. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2012.
• Garton, Stephen. “The Convict Origins Debate: Historians and the Problem of the ‘Criminal Class’.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 24, no. 2 (1991): 69-70.
• Gillen, Mollie. The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet. Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989.
• Gillen, Mollie. The Search for John Small, First Fleeter. Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1988.
• Harman, Kristyn. Aboriginal Convicts: Australian, Khoisan and Maori Exiles. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2012.
• Harman, Kristyn. Cleansing the Colony: Transporting Convicts from New Zealand to Van Diemen’s Land. Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2017.
• Horrocks, Brian, ed. The Wiltshire Regiment (The 62nd and 99th Regiments of Foot) by Tom Gibson. London: Leo Cooper, 1969.
• Hughes, Robert. The Fatal Shore: A History of the Transportation of Convicts to Australia, 1787-1868. London: Random House, 2010.
• Jackson, R. V. “Sickness and Health on Australia’s Female Convict Ships.” International Journal of Maritime History 18, no. 2 (2006): 65-84.
• Jordan, Robert. Convict Theatres of Early Australia 1788-1840. Sydney: Currency House, 2002.
• Karskens, Grace. People of the River: Lost Worlds of Early Australia. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2020.
• Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. “Biography, identity and names: understanding the pursuit of the individual in prosopography.” In Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook, edited by K. S. B. Heats-Rohan, 139-181. Oxford: Linacre College Unit for Prosopography Research, 2007.
• Kenrick, N.C.E. The story of the Wiltshire Regiment (Duke of Edinburgh's): the 62nd and 99th Foot, 1756-1959. Aldershot: Gale & Polden, 1963.
• Kippen, Rebecca, and Janet McCalman. “Mortality under and after sentence of male convicts transported to Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), 1840-1852.” The History of the Family 20, no. 3 (2015): 345-365.
• Lambert, Ronald D. “Reclaiming the ancestral past: narrative, rhetoric and the ‘convict stain’.” Journal of Sociology 38, no. 2 (2002): 111-127.
• Maxwell-Stewart, Hamish. “Big Data and Australian History.” Australian Historical Studies 47, no. 3 (2016): 359-364.
• Maxwell-Stewart, Hamish. “Convict transportation from Britain and Ireland 1615–1870.” History Compass 8, no. 11 (2010): 1221-1242.
• Maxwell-Stewart, Hamish. “The State, Convicts and Longitudinal Analysis.” Australian Historical Studies 47, no. 3 (2016): 414-429.
• McCalman, Janet, and Rebecca Kippen. “The life-course demography of convict transportation to Van Diemen's Land.” The History of the Family 25, no. 3 (2020): 432-454.
• Meredith, David, and Deborah Oxley. “The convict economy.” In The Cambridge Economic History of Australia, edited by Simon Ville and Glenn Withers, 97-122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
• Nicholas, Stephen, ed. Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Oxley, Deborah. Convict Maids: The Forced Migration of Women to Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Pybus, Cassandra, and Hamish Maxwell-Stewart. American Citizens, British Slaves: Yankee Political Prisoners in an Australian Penal Colony 1839-1850. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press, 2002.
• Pybus, Cassandra. Black Founders: The Unknown Story of Australia’s First Black Settlers. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2006.
• Reece, Bob. The Origins of Irish Convict Transportation to New South Wales. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001.
• Robson, L. L. The Convict Settlers of Australia: An Enquiry into the Origin and Character of the Convicts Transported to New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land 1782-1852. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1965.
• Rudé, George. Protest and Punishment: The Story of the Social and Political Protesters transported to Australia 1788-1868. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978.
• Shaw, A. G. L. Convicts and the Colonies: A Study of Penal Transportation from Great Britain and Ireland to Australia and other parts of the Empire. London: Faber and Faber, 1966.
• Shaw, A. G. L. “The British Criminal and Transportation.” Papers and Proceedings. Tasmanian Historical Research Association 2 (1953): 29-33.
• Shergold, Christine M. "A Note on the Destruction of New South Wales Convict Records." Journal of Australian Colonial History 11 (2009): 220-226.
• Smith, Babette. A Cargo of Women: Susannah Watson and the Convicts of the Princess Royal. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2011.
• Smith, Babette. The Luck of the Irish: How a Shipload of Convicts Survived the Wreck of the Hive to Make a New Life in Australia. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2014.
• Statham, Pamela, ed. A Colonial Regiment: New Sources Relating to the New South Wales Corps, 1789-1810. Canberra: P. Statham, c.1992.
• Stone, Lawrence. “Prosopography.” Daedalus 100 (1971): 46-79.
• Sturgess, Gary L., Sara Rahman, and George Argyrous, “Convict Transportation to New South Wales, 1787–1849: Mortality Rates Reconsidered.” Australian Economic History Review 58, no. 1 (2018): 62-86.
• Summers, Anne. Damned Whores and God’s Police: The Colonization of Women in Australia. Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1975.
• Townsley, W. A. 'Abbott, Edward (1766–1832)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/abbott-edward-3/text1821, published first in hardcopy 1966, accessed online 13 October 2020.
• Uglow, Jenny. The Lunar Men: The Friends who Made the Future. London: Faber and Faber, 2010.
• White, A. S. “Garrison, Reserve and Veteran Battalions and Companies,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, vol. 38, no. 156 (Dec 1960): 156-167.
• White, Jerry. London in the Eighteenth Century: A Great and Monstrous Thing. London: Random House, 2012.
• Wrigley, E. A., R. S. Davies, J. E. Oeppen, and R. S. Schofield. English Population History from Family Reconstitution, 1580-1837. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

 

 PhD Theses

• Taylor, Louise Westall. Recovering lives: 15 convicts in New South Wales. PhD diss., Australian National University, 2015.

 

Online Databases

• Australian Dictionary of Biography (http://adb.anu.edu.au/)
• Convict Records of Australia (https://convictrecords.com.au/)
• Digital Panopticon (https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/)
• Founders and Survivors (https://foundersandsurvivors.com/)
• Old Bailey Online (https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/)
• People Australia (http://peopleaustralia.anu.edu.au/)
• Prosecution Project (https://prosecutionproject.griffith.edu.au/)