LIST 25 - 1828 CENSUS - NEW SOUTH WALES

 
 
The first census of New South Wales was the 1828 Census, conducted in 
November of that year. There are 512 members of the First Generation identified 
in the census (247 males and 265 females, 427 colonial born and 85 childhood 
arrivals).
 
By the time of the 1828 Census the eldest of the colonial born would have 
been forty years old and the youngest twenty eight. Many if not most had families 
of their own by this time.
 
As  with earlier musters the practice of separating males and females is 
continued, once again to take account of the English custom of women taking 
their husbands surname upon marriage.
 
 
Males
 
The list contains 247 names (200 colonial born and 47  childhood arrivals). 
The information presented for each man includes:
 
 family name
 Christian name
 year of birth 
 parents' names 
 parents' civil status at the time of the child's birth
 parents' marital status at the time of the child's birth 
 colonial born or came free
 age
 religion
 occupation
 place of residence
 number of acres of land owned
 name as it appears in the original census
 reference number linking back to the original source document.
 
The list is ordered alphabetically on the person's name; family name then 
Christian name.
 
Four men were entered in the census twice: 
 
 George Cox [C2671]/[C2704]
 Henry Cox [C2669]/[C2710]
 Andrew Loder [L0984]/[L1033] 
 Phillip Thorley [T0688]/[T0694] 
Leaving 243 individual First Generation men in the census.
 
There were nine males whose birth and parents at this point in time have not 
been determined: 
 
 Alexander Books [B1616]
 Thomas Clark [C1156] 
  John Cruise [C3140] 
 William Howe [H2571] 
 Richard Joice [J0604] 
 Thomas Martin [M1902] 
 John Powell [P1153]
 George Taylor [T0082] 
  Thomas Wright [W2606]
 
William Cook understandably described himself as colonial born even though 
he was born on board the 'Royal Admiral' whilst it lay at anchor in Sydney 
Cove on the day of its arrival in 1800. Similarly Joseph Baylis(Thomas) 
described himself as colonial born when in fact he arrived as a four months 
old baby on the 'Bellona' in 1793. John Riley was also an infant in arms when 
he arrived with his convict mother on the 'Kitty' in 1792. John Kennedy 
was listed as arriving on the 'Britannia' in 1797 (the ship his wife arrived 
on) instead of the 'Sovereign'. Joseph Moss & Joshua Rose both used their second 
arrivals in the colony on the 'Christiana' in 1823 & 'Lady Sinclair' in 1806 
respectively. Duncan McKellar is listed under his return voyage to the colony 
in the 'City of Edinburgh' in 1825. John Palmer's ship of arrival is 
not recorded at all.
 
Isaac Shephard is incorrectly recorded as arriving free in 1791. Joseph Trimby 
was incorrectly described as holding a ticket of leave and arriving as a 
convict on the 'Friendship' in 1788 - which was really the correct description 
for his father. In both cases the clerk has obvious transferred the details 
of the father listed in the entry immediately above. Benjamin Singleton is 
incorrectly shown as a convict.
 
Neither James nor William Macarthur recorded their civil status, nor did George 
and Henry Cox, nor Joseph Pye, nor Robert Smith. Interestingly these were 
among the largest land owners and probably the wealthiest men amongst the 
First Generation
 
There were several obvious discrepancies in age but some may have been 
transcription errors on the part of the clerks in the colonial office. 
William Davis was recorded as 44 when he was in fact 34. James Lucas was recorded 
as 23 when he in fact was 30. James Daley was recorded as 30 when he was only 
3.
 
William Charles Wentworth did not record his age (38) at all nor did Benjamin 
Singleton (40).
 
One curious entry is for James Trimby who is known to have died in March 1828 
yet the census was not taken until November 1828. Perhaps his parents wished 
his name to be recorded in the census as a type of memorial to his memory. 
James Moss died a week before the census was taken. Both Joseph Baylis(Thomas) 
and Enoch Weavers were dead within a few weeks of the census in December 1828.
 
Totalling the Protestant/Catholic divide amongst the colonial born males 
is most instructive. Only 16 men (of just 7%) were Catholics, which 
dramatically gives the lie to the myth put about by the current crop of leftist 
historians and commentators about the size and importance of the Irish catholic 
minority. The colony always was and always remained overwhelmingly English and 
Protestant.
 
It must also be noted that 16 men (7%) had no entry in the religion column.
 
The census is not particularly helpful when attempting to subdivide the 
various Protestant denominations. Only three men identified themselves as 
Presbyterians 'S' - Duncan McKellar, Robert Robinson and James Smith. As a 
pointer to the fact that many did not bother to further refine the category 
of Protestant, James's brother John is simply recorded as 'P'.
 
One of the principle joys of studying the 1828 census is the way it helps to 
fill in some of the background to the lives of the First Generation. The detail 
of greatest interest with regard to the males is, of course, their occupation. 
The variety of occupations recorded is as follows:
 
 Table 25.1. - Male Occupations
 
 Occupation No. Category No. %
 ------------------------------------------------------
 dairyman 1 rural industries 121 (50%)
 farmer 76
 farmer&grazier 1
 grazier 2
 landholder 25 
 settler 13
 stockholder 1
 tennant  2
 
 accountant 1 professions 4 (2%)
 clergyman 1
 newspaper editor1 
 surgeon 1
 
 agent 1 small business 17 (7%) 
 innkeeper 3
 publican 11
 chief constable 1
 superintendant 1
 
 baker 1 trades 34 (14%)
 blacksmith 4
 boatbuilder 2
 builder 1
 butcher  2
 carpenter 8
 clerk 1
 fencer 1
 miller 1
 shipwright 5
 ships carpenter 1
 shoemaker 1
 tanner 1
 turner 1
 wheelwright 1
 
 carter 1 manual labour 34 (14%)
 constable 6
 labourer 13
 mariner 2
 overseer 4
 sawyer 5
 servant 2
 soldier 1
 
 nil 24 not recorded 32 (13%)
 blind man 1
 convict 1
 householder 2
 lodger 3
 son 1
 
A full half of the male population was involved with occupations related to 
the land, which is no doubt to be expected in a colony whose economy was 
principally rural based.
 
The terms farmer, settler, grazier, landholder described various forms of land 
ownership although landholder would appear to signify ownership of but not 
labour on the land, more in the nature of an English squire whereas the other 
three terms were analogous to the English yeomenry.
 
In such a society as existed at the time, being a landholder was probably the 
pinnacle of social eminence. It is interesting to note that William Charles 
Wentworth, who was a lawyer by profession, chose to record himself as a 
landholder.
 
Only 14% of males were in the unskilled category of manual labour which is 
surprising given that one might have thought that the education/apprenticeship 
opportunities of the First Generation would have been very limited.
 
Another 14% of males were employed as tradesmen. Not surprisingly, 
given the colonies reliance upon seafaring for communication and trade, 
quite a number were associated with shipping. Although only two men are 
recorded as mariners, given the nature of their occupation it is highly  likely 
that more native born, employed on ships, would have been on the high seas 
at the time of the census. Eight others were in the related endeavours 
of boatbuilder, shipwright and ships carpenter.
 
How the four "professionals" (John Black, Thomas Hassall, Robert Howe, John 
Henderson) managed to get their education is a matter of conjecture. It is 
unlikely they would have returned to England to obtain their training. 
 
There was no occupation recorded in 24 instances and 8 others had entries in 
this column which were unrelated to any occupation.
 
In passing, how pleasant it is to see the street names and suburbs and 
districts of Sydney as we know them today, being used nearly two hundred years 
ago. These names provide a touching connection and continuity with our pioneer 
families.
 
Analysis of land ownership is another fascinating and informative aspect of the 
data contained within the census.
 
Nearly two thirds of males (156) held some land, ranging from Robert Hobbs 
with 4 acres and James Lavello with 5, up to William Charles Wentworth with 7,000 
and George Bowman with 7,566 acres.
 
Of course the total number of acres owned does not necessarily give an 
indication of relative wealth. One hundred acres in Windsor or Portland 
Head may well have generated as much income as one thousand acres beyond the 
home counties in Bathurst or Goulburn.
 
John Thorn who is described as the chief constable of Parramatta held 1850 
acres. Isaac Shephard was a grazier yet owned no land but his father James held 
1500 acres so he was obviously working for him. John Palmer was a farmer and 
grazier but had no land recorded. James Bean and Richard Partridge were 
settlers and again had no land recorded against their names. These may have 
been errors in data collection.
 
Even though described as a 'servant' William Carver still managed to own 120 
acres (could this be a clerical error ?). Likewise William Davis described 
as a sawyer claims to have owned 100 acres.
 
Edward Devine let himself and his generation down by being incarcerated 
at Port Stephens with a seven year colonial sentence.
 
Of the 245 males in the 1822 Muster, 195 are recorded in this Census.
 
 
Females
 
The list contains 265 females (227 colonial born and 38 childhood arrivals). 
Information recorded for each women is the same as for the males but with the 
additional marital details of; name of spouse and current marital status. This 
once again is recorded to help make sense of the surname under which the woman 
appears in the original document.
 
Six colonial born women are recorded twice in the census. Susannah 
Harrigan(Ruse) is recorded once spelt Hadgen [H0026] and then as Harrighan 
[H0754]. Mary Ann Eggleston(Whitton) is record twice [E0109 & E0273] with 
the second time spelt Ecclestone, others include; Eleanor Christford(Cooper) 
[C1096 & C1098], Esther Hendle(Beckett) [H1477 & H1478], Elizabeth 
Marshall(Pawley) [M1082 & M1828] once with her husband in Pitt Street and 
secondly as a servant in Cumberland Street, Elizabeth Saunders appears once 
under her husband's surname of Jenkins [J0267] and again under her maiden 
name of Sanders [S0081], perhaps she was visiting her parents at the time 
of the census and her father included her in the family group.
 
Thus the list contains 259 individual women.
 
Most of the women by this time were married, and were recorded under their 
married name in the census, so ascertaining the exact identity of many has 
been quite a challenge. However cross referencing the early church marriage 
registers has yielded  the maiden names for most of the women as well as reference 
to that gold mine of genealogical information the 'Pioneer Register' which 
has provided much useful information in relation to the colonial born women.
 
Sorting out Sarah Rowe proved something of a challenge. She is recorded under 
the name of Perry with no husband associated with her. Using the names and ages 
of her children is was possible to identify her as the wife of John Purvey 
and the name 'Perry' obviously being a mistranscription.
 
Why Mary Ruse is recorded under her maiden name is something of a mystery. She 
was in fact the separated wife of John Crooks whom she had married in 1815.
 
Charlotte Farrell(Meredith) for some reason was recorded as a male - Charles.
 
There are fourteen women who are recorded as the wives of men living in 
the colony whose parents have not been identified at this time. In some cases 
it may be that the surname used in the marriage record is a previous husband's 
surname or an error of some other kind in the transcription making it 
difficult to associate her with a known colonial family. Hopefully some future 
research may sort out many of these entries:
 
 Esther Campton, wife of George Taylor
  Elizabeth Cooper, wife of John Ryan
 Mary Dowling, wife of Thomas King
 Elizabeth Ellard, wife of Andrew Johnston
 Mary Ennis, wife of Thomas Walsh
 Martha Farrell, wife of John Murphy
 Mary Hill, wife of Henry Howell
 Sarah Plimblet, wife of Henry Hervey 
 Mary Ann Roberts, wife of Richard Lewis
 Elizabeth Sampson, wife of Joseph Willmott
 Mary Smith, wife of William Foreman
 Suzanne Storthart, wife of Samuel Dick
 Mary Watson, wife of Michael Delaney 
 Elizabeth Williams, wife of John Hodges
  
There are five women who are recorded as the wives of men living in the colony 
whose maiden names are unknown because their marriages have not been found, 
perhaps due to the fact that no such marriage record ever existed for as 
shall be seen below several women are recorded as 'wives' when in fact they 
were not:
 
 Lucy, wife of Dennis Bryant [B2969]
 Mary, wife of James Butler [B3549]
 Mary, wife of John Hopkins [H2344]
 Sarah, wife of William Watts [W0570]
 Sarah, wife of William Lees [L0564]
 
There are six women, who are not associated with any man in the census and 
as a consequence it is not possible to determine whether they were married 
or not, whether their surnames were their maiden names or not and for whom 
no possible parents have been found:
 
 Mary Ann Armstrong [A0565]
 Frances Hagan [H0056]
 Margaret Percival [P0585]
 Mary Ridge [R0740]
 Ann Smith [S1509]
 Ann Stoolorn [S2607]
 
The above eleven women, because of the mysteries surrounding their identities, 
are not found in any other lists in this work.
 
Nine women were all recorded as born in the colony when they are known to have 
arrived as young children:
 
 Ann Morgan(Collins)
 Elizabeth Sherrington(Davis) 
 Jane Dorrington(Gittens) 
 Elizabeth Hartley(Grono)
 Elizabeth Hoare(Love) 
 Ann Hassall(Marsden)
 Charlotte Britten(Sutton) 
 Sarah Harrex(Taber)
 Elizabeth Brown(Winch) 
 
It is reassuring to note how these women thought of, and classified, 
themselves as colonial born, even the more educated ones like Ann Marsden. 
It certainly helps to justify the inclusion of the childhood arrivals with 
the colonial born in this work.
 
Anna Maria Macarthur(King) is listed under her second arrival in the colony 
on board the 'Isabella' in 1812. Elizabeth Ryan(Watson) had her ship 
of arrival incorrectly recorded as 'Scarborough'. Elizabeth Shepherd is shown 
as arriving free in 1791 when she was not even born until 1799. 
 
Anne Cox(Blanchard)[C2684] who arrived free on the 'Lloyds' in 1817 is 
incorrectly shown as born in the colony, as is Catherine Fishburn(Ash)[F0530] 
who arrived free on "HMS Kangaroo' in 1814, as is Emma Gray(Bebb)[G0970] who 
arrived free on 'Lord Melville' in 1817.
 
Elizabeth Macarthur did not record her age. Eleanor Brown(Flemming) 
did not have her ship of arrival recorded. Rosanna Stewart(Julian) did 
not record her civil status. 
 
Jane Walsh(Jones) mistakenly has a 7 year sentence recorded against her 
name, obviously a transcription error from her husband's entry above. 
 
Poor Henrietta Fletcher(Shewring) died in August 1828 just three months before 
the census was taken and Ann Williams(Haywood) in October just a month before 
the census.
 
For some reason the Christian names of the husband of Sarah Smith(Broughton) 
were recorded as Christopher Thomas instead of Charles Throsby.
 
What is it about ladies and their age ? Elizabeth Sherringham(Davis) 
is recorded as 32 when she is generally thought to have been 42. Jane 
Cribb(Hewett) recorded her age as 22 when she was 32. On the other hand, Sarah 
Waples(Howe) is recorded as 58 when in fact she was 28, and Susannah Rose(Cross) 
is recorded as 53 when she was only 36 ! Mary Bowman(Macarthur), Esther Packer, 
Mary Sullivan and Elizabeth Willmott did not bother to record their ages 
at all.
 
As with  the males, the Protestant/Catholic divide amongst the women again 
confirms the overwhelming Protestant character of the colony at this time. 
Whilst the proportion of Catholic women doubled to 14% (36 women) they were 
still a small minority.
 
Those women who had no information in the religion column remained at 
a 7% (18 women) identical to the male case.
 
One woman, Lydia McDuel identified herself as a Wesleyan-Methodist. Even 
more intriguingly Harriet Robinson was Jewish but it  is most probably that 
she converted upon her marriage to Abraham Elias, as both her sisters 
- Ann & Mary - were Protestants.
 
It is interesting to note that many of the women were listed as married women, 
using their husbands surname, when they were not in fact legally married. There 
are three possible explanations for this; first - it may simply be a case 
of not being able to find the marriage record, second - the clerks taking 
down the information may have been too polite to embarrass the women at the 
census desk by recording that she was, to use the Reverend Marsden's phase, 
a concubine, third - the woman may have been fibbing. In four cases at least 
the first does not apply; even though Elizabeth Nowland is recorded as the 
legal wife of James Rochester they were not in fact married until 1850 (they 
had to await the death of her first husband Henry Richardson)! Catherine Dring 
did not marry Samuel Arndell until 1849. Elizabeth Evans did not marry John 
Madden until 1832. Sarah Spencer did not marry John Griffiths until 1831 yet 
she was already listed with him and using his name when her first husband, 
Charles Hadley, had only been dead for 5 weeks ! Maybe with a young family 
to support, propriety had to give way to pragmatism. There are 14 other women 
for whom no marriage record could be found. 
 
Ann Yeomans(Crew) was the only woman to have the honesty to record that 
she was living with, and bearing the children of, a man to whom she was not 
married (in passing she was also using her stepfathers surname). Elizabeth 
Walker(Kirby) was obviously so excited at being a new bride, married on the 
20th October, just days before the census, that she preferred to refer 
to herself simply as Mrs Walker with no Christian name at all.
 
Almost without exception these First Generation women entered into marriage. 
The vast majority were currently married, but there were 17 women who were 
separated and not living with their husbands, and 24 women can be identified 
as current widows.
 
There were only seven women listed as spinsters and of these Maria Robinson 
was to marry a couple of months after the census at the age of 32, Elizabeth 
Mary Marsden had to wait until 1837 to marry at the age of 37. This means that 
of the 260 women on the list only 5 (or just 1.5%) were never to marry. 
This is surely indicative of the great demand that women found themselves in, 
in the colony at the time. No doubt many young women today would like to find 
themselves similarly ardently pursued.
 
Jane Matilda Hutchinson(Jamieson) is recorded as a spinster but either she 
or the clerk recording her information did not know that the correct 
description a married women whose husband has died is widow !
 
The Smith sisters showed a touching family characteristic. All three; Jane, 
Kezia and Mary were separated from their husbands at the time of the census !
 
As stated above, colonial born women of this time had but one choice of 
occupation - that of wife and mother. Of those few who did record an occupation, 
they were of the domestic variety:
 
 Table 25.2. - Domestic Occupations
 
 Occupation No.
 ----------------------------
 housekeeper 11
 servant 4
 laundress 3
 dressmaker/sempstress 2
 
When a women has recorded her occupation as a housekeeper, presumably 
she does not mean for her husband.
 
The few non domestic occupations recorded were:
 
 
 Table 25.3. - Non Domestic Occupations
 
 Occupation No.
  ---------------------------
 landholder 9
 householder 8
 farmer 4
 innkeeper/publican 2
 
Almost all of the women who recorded an occupation were not currently 
supported by a man, either they were widowed or separated or in the case 
of spinsters not yet married. Only Sarah Byfield(Chipp) who was a dressmaker, 
Elizabeth Marshall(Pawley) who was a servant and Ann Morgan(Collins) who was 
a washerwoman, appear to be married and still living with their husbands.
 
Turning to the matter of land ownership. Only 17 women owned land and of these 
12 were widows, obviously inheriting the land from their husbands. 
 
Mary Gardner(McCoy) and Ann Young(Biggers) are shown as the landholder 
rather than their husbands but in both cases this was because their husbands 
were still serving their sentences and could not legally hold land until they 
were emancipated.
 
Two women who were separated from their husbands held land for some reason; 
Jane Dorrington(Gittens) and Mary Miller(Watson).
 
The only woman who appears to own land independently of her husband is 
Diana Teale(Kable). She came from a wealthy family and may have inherited the 
land in her own right from her father.
 
Interestingly Rosanna Stewart(Julian) is shown as a landholder but with no 
acres recorded against her name, perhaps this was a clerical error.
 
Ann McVitie(Jones) did well for herself marrying the managing director of 
the Bank of Australia. A convict heritage did not seem to stand in her way.
 
Poor Jane Hawkins(Cowling) went insane and was incarcerated in the Benevolent 
Asylum in Sydney.
 
Ann Smith [S1509] managed to disgrace; herself, her generation and her sex 
by acquiring a colonial sentence for life. Her background remains a mystery 
- perhaps just as well !
 
Of the 260 females in the 1822 Muster, 180 are recorded in this Census.

Proceed to Census Lists

Return to 1788-1800

Return to Children Born in the Colony Home Page or Original FFF Website Home Page or New FFF Website Home Page

This work is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Enquiries should be made to the publisher.