LIST 20 - 1814 MUSTER - NEW SOUTH WALES
The fourth muster presented for New South Wales is the 1814 Muster, which
took place in October of that year. There are 415 members of the First Generation identified from this muster (348 colonial born, 67 childhood arrivals, 159 males and 256 females). Once again what has happened to all the males ?
The information presented for each entry is:
family name Christian nameyear 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 residential area civil status on or off stores ship of arrival occupation(males) with whom lives(females) number of children(females) surname as it appears in the original muster reference number linking the entry back to the original source document. The entries in the list are presented alphabetically; ordered firstly by
the father's name, secondly by the child's Christian name. This was done to preserve family groupings. In the original they were grouped into four areas
of residence (Windsor, Parramatta, Liverpool, Sydney), with the males
preceding the females in each group, then free people before convicts but
beyond that no discernible pattern of placement is evident.
By 1814 even the youngest of the first generation of colonial born would
have been on the cusp of adulthood, whilst most were well and truely into
it, with their careers and their own families rapidly taking shape.
One boy and two girls would appear to be duplicated in the Muster; James
Morris [4820]/[4999], Ann Freebody [1539]/[3773] and Ann Piggott
[1364]/[1561], bringing the total number of individuals in this list to
413. Again the question has to be asked, why these particular 413 First
Generation colonist and not the hundreds of others, is a mystery.
Ann Freebody was entered first at Windsor [1539] on Thursday 20th October where she may have been visiting family and friends and where she gave the correct
spelling of her husband's surname (Henshaw) and secondly at Liverpool [3773],
where she lived, on Saturday 5th November but the excitement of registering
twice obviously got the better of her as she gave her Christian name as "Daniel"
and her husband's surname ended up as "Hantcherd".
Charles Malpas [5050] is mistakenly listed as 'born here' on the original muster
when he in fact arrived on board the "Admiral Barrington" in 1791 as a convict.
As in the original source document the females have been separated from
the males in order to make sense of the surnames under which their entries are found in the Muster because most of them were already in relationships with
men and following the English custom, women took their husband's surname upon
marriage.
The year of birth, parental details and some marriage details (for females)
are additional information, which are not in the original muster, researched
for this work, principally from the Pioneer Register.As mentioned the married girls used their husband's surname virtually
without exception. As a result it was important to research the females'
marriages to discover their maiden names. Mary Robinson proved something
of a challenge until it was realised that her husband was John Waite and
not John White as recorded. Some were particularly tricky to track down, such
as Mary Middleton who married under her stepfather William Blackmore's
name, or Elizabeth Redding who married under Garland or Letitia Sever who
married under Green, in both cases their mother's maiden names.
The single females and all the males used their father's surnames almost exclusively, whether he was married to their mother or not. The were only
five exceptions to this practice who used their mother's maiden names;
John King(Watkins)Francis Squire(Spencer)
William Summers(Christie)
Enoch Weavers(Hutchinson)
Ann Caesar(Poor) Seven others used their stepfather's surname;
John Chew(Hindle) Susannah Fitz(Stubbs) Thomas Hoskisson(Upton) John Irving(Marsh)Ann & Mary Crew(Yeoman)
Susannah Flannigan(Chapman).Elizabeth & Sarah Ward, whilst using their father's surname are listed as being
the daughters of their stepfather Charles Walker.
The parents and birth details of 4 males and 12 females are still unknown at
this time:
Christopher Hacken [5054]
William McDonald [0373]
John Tyre [5038]
Thomas Wright [0029]
Mary Burgess [6297]
Elizabeth Ellet [6354]
Rachel Field [6407]
Sarah Gould [6416]
Frances Martin [6464]
Margaret Martin [2945]
Ann Murmon [6473]
Mary Roberts [1408]
Lydia Sharp [6258]
Mary Smith [1452]
Elizabeth Williams [3155]
Elizabeth Williams [6627]
It has been possible to calculate the years of birth of; Mary Roberts,
Elizabeth Willliams & Thomas Wright, from the age given in their entry in the 1828 Census.
In thirteen cases the father has not been identified;
William Bruce [5413]
Mary Ann Burns [6180]
Elizabeth Dailey [1677]
Elizabeth Davis [1510]
Mary Ennis [3088]
Jane Gittens [1554]
Elizabeth Goodwin [6605]
Jane Jones [6475]
Rosanna Julian [6273]
Mary Kearns [6570]
Charlotte Loveridge [6541]
Ann Partridge [6626]
Catherine Riley [6574]
and in truth the identity of Wililam Howell's [4598] father is uncertain as
well.
The mothers are unknown at this time of:
George Carr [2170]
William Howell [4598]
Elizabeth Aicken [3790]
Margaret Murrell [6214]
Elizabeth Schaeffer [6303]
and several of the children born to parents married in England do not have their
mother's maiden name recorded.
As in the case of the 1811 Muster the identity of Elizabeth Schaeffer being
the same as Elizabeth Smith has been deduced from the fact that there were
no other women named Elizabeth who arrived free on the 'Lady Juliana',
although it has to be admitted that up to this point in time no marriage
to a man named Smith has been found. Sadly Elizabeth was a widow by the time of the 1814 Muster.
The maiden names of the wives of six men have not been solved as yet since their marriage record has not been found:
Thomas Aldgate - ux Mary
James Brackenrigg - ux Sarah J Brown - ux Charlotte John Monday - ux Mary James O'Hara - ux Elizabeth Thomas Payten - ux SarahThe muster divides the population into four regions of "Residence";
Windsor, Parramatta, Liverpool & Sydney. The Windsor region included Governor
Macquarie's famous Five Towns of Windsor, Richmond, Castlereagh, Wilberforce
& Pitt Town as well as Portland Head. The Parramatta region covered the districts
of Parramatta, the "Hills" of; Prospect, Seven, Baukham & Pennant, as well
as Toongabbee, Northern Boundaries, Field of Mars and Dundas. The Liverpool
region encompassed the districts of Liverpool, Bunbury Curran, Airds and
Appin. The Sydney region extended beyond the bounds of Sydney Town to Kissing
Point, Concord, Botany Bay and Cook's River.
The numbers of the First Generation residing in each of the regions is
as follows:
Table 20.1. - Place of ResidencePlace No.
------------------Windsor 137
Parramatta 85
Liverpool 30
Sydney 164
Then as now, Sydney dominated the colony.
The "Status" column in the original muster had only two possibilities;
free or convict, free presumably included time expired convicts and convict
was restricted to serving convicts. All the entries in this list are free with
the one regrettable exception of Enoch Weavers who managed to disgrace both
himself and his generation by receiving a colonial sentence and being in Parramatta goal.
The "Stores" column in the original muster had only two possibilities;
on or off, the vast majority of the first generation were off stores
and not a burden on the government by providing for themselves. Those on
store were mainly in government employ of one sort or another like John Cupitt
who was clerk to the goaler or those on charity like Joseph Love who was blind.
But even poor Robert Robinson who was deaf & dumb and Joseph Pye who was
on charity were both off stores, although Joseph's entry is a little counter
intuitive in that he is also listed as a landholder.All the apprentices in the dockyard and the lumbar yard were on stores but
all other apprentices were not, since these two categories are all grouped
together this may have been a clerical error.
When considering the females, whether they were on or off stores depended upon to whom they were married. The wives of constables and the military tended
to be on stores, although why the wives of landholders like Isaac Nichols or
Thomas Dunn were on stores is a mystery. Rose Bean may have been separated from her husband Thomas Dunn because she is recorded in Sydney and on stores but
he in Windsor and off stores.
The "Ship of Arrival" column in the original muster records 'born here' for the
colonial born. Robert Batman, Ann Collins(Morgan), Elizabeth
Davids(Sherringham), Jane Gittens(Dorrington), Maria Ikin(Martin), Ann
Kenny, Elizabeth Love(Hoare), Charlotte Loveridge, Ann Marsden, Henrietta
Shewring(Fletcher), Charlotte Sutton(Britain), Elizabeth Watson, are all
incorrectly shown as born here when they in fact were childhood arrivals.
It is interesting that so many of the childhood arrivals regarded themselves
as colonial born.
In this muster for the first time there are four colonial born who have a
ship of arrival, this is not an error since each was making a return trip to the colony.
William Guise and his sister Elizabeth are shown as arriving on board the "Young
William" in 1807, this was their return trip to New South Wales having previously departed the colony in 1804 on board "Coromandel" with their soldier father after he had served his 14 year tour of duty, the whole family had obviously
decided to return to the colony as settlers. Anna Maria King, Governor King's daughter, who was born on Norfolk Island
is recorded as arriving free aboard the "Isabella". Anna was something
of a "frequent sailer" in that she sailed to England with her parents aboard
the "Britannia" in 1797, then returned to the colony as a member of the
colony's first family aboard the "Speedy" in 1800 when her father was
appointed Governor, sailed to England after he was recalled aboard "HMS
Buffalo" in 1806 and finally returned to the colony as Mrs Hannibal Macarthur aboard " Isabella" in 1812.
Similarly Marianne Collins, natural daughter of the Judge-Advocate sailed
to England with her mother (and father) in 1796 on board the "Britannia" only
to return three years later on board the "Albion" in 1799 with her mother
and brother and stepbrother. Interestingly she fell in love with and married
Samuel Chace, a future captain of the "Albion".
John Kennedy once again, as in the 1811 Muster, has his ship incorrectly
recorded as "Surprise" instead of "Sovereign" - could there be some reason
for this ?
One piece of additional information of particular interest which the 1814 Muster provides is the occupations of the colonial males now that they were becoming adults and entering the workforce. The table below lists their occupations
and also puts them into related groups. Table 20.2. - Male OccupationsOccupation No. Category No.
-----------------------------------------------------landholders 48 rural pursuits 49 (31%)
assistant to 1
superintendent of stockbaker 1 trades 42 (27%)
blacksmith 1
carpenters 8
nailer 1
shipwrights 3
ships carpenter 1
ships mate 1
apprentices: 26
dockyard 10
carpenters 6
lumbaryard 3
blacksmith 1
unspecified 6
clerk to Mr Jenkins 1 clerical 2 (1%)
clerk to goaler 1
employed by Mr Palmer 1 manual labour 39 (26%)
fisherman 1
labourers 31
seaman 4
servants 2
lives with: 11 nondescript 27 (17%)
father 7
mother 2
stepfather 1
brother 1
a youth 1
a lad 1
single 10
charity 2
as a child at 1
1/2 rationsin goal 1
About one third were landholders and/or involved in rural pursuits, which
is to be expected given the predominately agricultural nature of the colony
at the time. In fact it might have been expected this percentage to be even
higher, no doubt some of those classified as labourers should be included in
this category as well.
About another third were in trades, either as fully fledged tradesmen or
apprentices. Four lads were described as apprentices to L Butler who was a cabinet maker so one can assume they were carpenters, Simon Freebody was
'apprenticed to A Tanner' but there is no A Tanner in this muster nor
any other musters, perhaps the entry should have been 'apprenticed to a tanner',
in anycase whatever his trade was he appears to have given it away because
by the 1828 census he was a farmer. Seven others have unspecified
apprenticeships but from the 1828 census one learns that Robert Wright was
a blacksmith and James Morris was a carpenter, unfortunately John & William
Small were both constables by then so may have given their trade away as
well. William Packer was 24 years old and still an apprentice, perhaps he was a slow learner.
About a quartre were in unskilled occupations. William Fishburn was employed
by Mr Palmer but in what capacity is not stated.
Twenty seven others had nondescript entries which gave no indication
of an occupation if they had one at all; William Freeman being described
as a 'youth' and Josephus Barsden as a 'lad' - not particularly helpful. James
Wilbow had the unusual description of 'as a child at 1/2 rations'.
Thomas Silk is the only lad to have no entry in this column.
The corresponding column heading for the females is "With Whom Lives" but
compared to the males there was much less variety. Only 14 women were not
either; too young to be married, not yet married, married, or widowed. Table 20.3. - Female OccupationsOccupation No.
----------------------daughter of 11
single 72
wife of 150
lives with 7
widow of 1
landholder 1
housekeeper 2
servant 11
Those classified as "daughter of" tended to be the younger girls as one might expect.
Of the "single" women, research would suggest that only three would remain
that way throughout their lives; Martha Jamieson, Julia Johnston and
Elizabeth Macarthur, not a bad 'accomplishment' given the huge
preponderance of males in the colony and the pressing demands for wives !
And not all the "single" women were as single as their entry would suggest.
Four single women had a child listed with them; Alice Grainger, Maria Ikin,
Mary Kearns & Mary Rope whilst two; Charlotte Loveridge & Ann Caesar(Poor) had two children each, in Charlotte's case to two separate men. Sarah Burgess and Mary Ann Field were married to men, using their surnames, but listed as single.
And in the reverse situation, Elizabeth Eggleton, even though married to
John Fraser, was not using his surname and listed as single. Ann Crew was
known to be living with Thomas Rose.
The "wives" were not all legally so. One case at least jumped the gun at little,
Catherine Wilbow was not married until 1818. Mary Duggan is recorded as the wife of William Sherwin but no marriage record has been found and more indicatively, in Marsden's 1806 list she is referred to as a 'concubine'. Sarah
Sutton whilst not married to John Wilks still used his surname even though she was living with another man !
Other girls not legally married to their husbands who still used their surname, include for example;
Hannah Edge (Matthews) Jane Gittens (Dorrington) Frances Martin (Aiken)Of the seven women honest enough to record that they were "living with" a man who was not their husband, one is an error because Sarah Spencer was already
married to Charles Hadley and using his surname and Mary Roberts would go
on to marry Richard Lewis is 1825, she was just using his name a little early.Maria Lee, one of the two "housekeepers" was married to James Bloodworth
and using his name, they were possibly separated. That Lucy Mileham was a
landholder at the age of just 15 would appear unlikely.All eleven "servants" would go on to marry.
Elizabeth Guise was incorrectly shown as the wife instead of the daughter of
Richard Guise. Sophia Acres' husband was incorrectly listed as James instead of Jeremiah Smith. Rose Bean's husband is incorrectly named as James instead of Thomas Dunn. Some of the husband's surnames ended up with interesting
variations; Hoy as Royd, Ray as Raymond, Waite as White, Williams as Williamson.The entry for Mary Ann Burns is particularly confusing. It is suggested that
the details were confused with her mothers entry below, Mary Ann was most likely
the daughter of the soldier of the 73rd Regiment and her mother the wife,
her mother is also more likely to be the mother of the four children.
The "Number of Children" column in the original muster has the children divided
into those on and off stores but they have been totalled to just one number
in this list. By 1814, Eleanor Flemming(Brown) and Sarah Laycock(Bayly)
had 7 children both these were both older women being childhood arrivals,
Elizabeth Baker(Hayes) had the most of the colonial born with 6.
Another interesting element to emerge in this muster is the first indication
of the social hierarchy in the colony with ten of the first generation colonial
born males being given the honorific 'Mr'. The meritocracy seems to have taken
hold very early in the colony taking precedence over birth. Only George & Henry Cox and Samuel & William Laycock could be described as "pure merinoes" with
no convict stain in their parentage. Thomas Arndell, John Black, David Johnston,
William Wentworth all had convict mothers, whilst Thomas Cubitt and George
Wright had both parents convicts. What each one did to warrant this distinction is not certain at this time, although land ownership undoubtedly played a
part, Thomas Cubitt was the mate (presumably first) of the ship "Cumberland"
but Thomas Arndell was still living with his father.
Thirteen of the females have an honorific attached to their names indicating
a social distinction:
Miss Sarah Arndell [1396]
Mrs Margaret Campbell [6214]
Mrs Elizabeth Hayes [6702]
Miss Julia Johnston [6203]
Mrs Sarah Laurie [6302]
Miss Rebecca Laycock [6249]
Mrs Anna Maria McArthur [3076]
Mrs Sarah Redfern [6770]
Mrs Elizabeth Robinson [6294]
Mrs Elizabeth Tompson [6301]
Mrs Mary Underwood [6195]
Mrs Maria Uther [6208]
Mrs Jane Youl [1606]
Mrs Redfern and Mrs Robinson are something of a surprise since both were married
to men who arrived in the colony as convicts.
It is surprising that the Misses McArthur [3078]/[3079] are not indicated as
such nor the Misses Arndell [1395]/[1836] for that matter. Miss Johnston's elevated status however was not enough to ensure the correct spelling of her
surname.
The Muster does provide one hint as to what happened to all the missing 'boys'.
Three ships were obviously in port at the time of the muster; "Cumberland",
"Geordy" and "Trail", and each one had colonial born men as crew. No doubt there were many ships on the high seas with similar colonial crewmen. It is only logical in a way that ships' masters desperate to replace dead, sick or
absconding crew members, would attempt to replace them from the ready pool
of colonial youth. Tales of maritime adventure would no doubt have appealed to the youth of the young colony which in the early days cannot have been a particularly exciting place to live. It will probably never be known just how many of the First Generation became seafarers but going by the number of
'missing' from these early musters, the figure is undoubtedly a large one.
One final observation on the five colonial seafarers, not one appears to
be mentioned in colonial records again, certainly none appeared to have died in the colony and one can only hope that they did not meet with a watery grave.
Only 38 of the 57 males and 85 of the 128 females from the 1811 Muster appear
in this muster.
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.