Family Tree

of Trudy Mae COWLEY

This page last updated:  08-Dec-2003

Abodes     Aliases     Baptism     Birth     Burial     Children     Death     Description     Doing the Time     Education     Events     Freedom     Marriage     Occupations     Property     Provision     Siblings     Transportation     Trial

* Sibling in italics is half-brother.

Abodes

At the time of the baptisms of his daughter Eleanor and son Robert in 1819, Robert was living at Norfolk Plains.  Robert was a settler at the Springs (now Hadspen), Norfolk Plains at the time his daughters Elizabeth, Emma and Diana were baptised in 1830.

On 1 December 1858, Robert was listed in and erased from the Westbury District Valuation Rolls as the occupier of an 110 acre farm at Marsh Paddock, Exton.  The farm was owned by T W FIELD of Westfield and valued at £55.  It is likely that Robert had been renting the property, but no longer was, or the property had changed ownership.

TOP

Baptism

Robert's name was given as Robert BAMES on his baptism record (IGI Film 0417104) - son of Edward and Amy BAMES.  My reading of the record is that he was born on 20 July 1781, though another researcher has read this date as 28 July 1781.

TOP

Children

When the return of the juvenile population of Norfolk Plains requiring education from 4-17 years of age was conducted sometime between 1824 and 1836, Robert had 2 male children (ages 9 and 11) and 2 female children (ages 6 and 7) in this age group - these would have been his four eldest children, Edward, James, Mary and Eleanor.  It was noted at the time that Edward could read – he never learnt to write.  Robert indicated that all four children would attend the public school if there was one and pay one shilling for each child each week to attend.  However, there was no school at the time and since Edward never learnt to write, there probably wasn’t one established in the district for at least a few years. (CSO 1/240/5809, p130)

TOP

Death

Robert survived Susannah by 17 years, and was listed as a labourer at the time of his death.  

Robert died at Westbury on 12 January 1861 aged 81 years.  He died of natural decay.  Horatio JAMES of Westbury, Robert’s son-in-law, registered his death two days later on 14 January 1861.  Thus it is likely that Robert went to live with his daughter Elizabeth in his last few years. 

TOP

Description

The Beams family belong to the ancient Norman house of de BELLEME, directly tracing their descent from Roger of MONTGOMERY, the cousin of William the Conqueror.  Roger was the first Norman Earl of Shrewsbury, and it was he who actually planned and commanded the Battle of Hastings in 1066.  

The Beams were one of the most powerful families for the first few centuries of Norman rule of England, amongst whom were several Bishops of London.  The Beams family originating from Tasmania belong to the branch that settled in Wiltshire in the middle ages, and the family fortunes fell on to hard times about the time of the death of John BEAMS (Robert’s grandfather) in 1799.

The background to the family fits with the fact that Robert was educated, being able to read and write.  The idea that the family had fallen on hard times fits with the fact that Robert’s brother Thomas was tried with him.  Although he was found not guilty, he was also transported to Sydney (possibly for another offence) and subsequently joined Robert in Port Dalrymple in 1817.

In her book, The West Tamar People, Lois Nyman (n.d., p80) writes about Robert as the ancestor of the BEAMS family that settled at Flowery Gully in the West Tamar region of northern Tasmania.

Robert Beams, the ancestor of the family in Tasmania, went to Hadspen, living at what is known as 'Beams Hollow'.  There he carried out his trade as a brickmaker, sometimes taking his payment in livestock, and became known as a useful and honest man.  Some of the family moved to the North-West Coast while others settled on the West Tamar, where they became farmers.

I am not convinced, however, that Robert BEAMS was an altogether "honest" man considering the various charges against him and his sons for cattle stealing and rumours of harbouring bushrangers, which possibly included his son Edward.

TOP

Doing the Time

Upon arrival at Port Dalrymple in 1804, Robert was assigned as a storekeeper under Alexander RILEY for the new settlement.  By November 1805, Robert was in charge of the stores at Port Dalrymple, during RILEY’s absence.  

On 14 November 1805 Lieutenant Colonel PATERSON wrote to Governor KING stating that “the Court Martials which I mentioned in my last, are now sent with Robt BEAMS’s Deposition” (HRA).

The deposition referred to here may have been one of the depositions used to convict four men of stealing meat at Port Dalrymple, two of whom were executed as a result.  The time frame is similar and Robert BEAMS was in charge of the store.  By the end of 1805 there was famine and at this time three soldiers from the NSW Marine Corps and a convict were sent back to Sydney for stealing meat.  All four were originally sentenced to death, but two of the soldiers got reprieved, to serve as crown servants, whilst the third was sent back to Port Dalrymple for public execution, and the convict to Hobart for public execution.  The public executions were supposed to set an example for the rest of the community. 

However, it may also have referred to the trial of eight convicts for rebellious behaviour who were sent to Sydney from Port Dalrymple per Lady Nelson.  If this is the case, then some soldiers must have been involved to warrant Courts Martial.

Whichever the case, as a result of Robert BEAMS’ deposition, it seems that PATERSON recommended him for a Conditional Pardon.

TOP

Events

In October 1821, an article in the Launceston Advertiser gives a summary of the cases heard at the court of Criminal Jurisdiction convened by the Precept of His Excellency the Governor in Chief at Launceston on Tuesday, 15 May 1821.  One of the cases detailed a murder at Robert BEAMS’ farm at Norfolk Plains. 

Henry Butler was charged with the wilful murder of one Benjamin Davis, on Monday, the 20^th day of March last, at the farm of BEAMES, on Norfolk Plains.  The evidence taken in this case extended to a great length.  The prisoner and the deceased had been, it appeared, on the farm together for about three weeks or a month, during which time it seemed to be clearly proved, that the most friendly terms had subsisted between them, nor was the slightest difference known to have taken place up to the time of Davis’s death.  The deceased had been drinking at Beames’s, in company with the prisoner and two or three others, during the latter part of Sunday, and again on Monday morning, until he became “stupidly drunk”, and all the party were more or less intoxicated.  As the deceased was lying on the floor before the fire in this state, the woman of the house requested the prisoner and another to take him out and lay him under the stacks, about 20 or 30 yards distant, where he was accordingly carried, and the men returned to the house.  Soon after, the prisoner went out to thrash; and Beames’s son, a boy about ten years old, said he would go with him; when the prisoner, in good temper, said “Come along, I’ll soon wind you.”  The mother of the boy followed soon after, within five minutes, as she swore, when she heard the flails go; and on coming to the ground saw the prisoner with the flail in his hand, but not the boy.  As she passed the deceased, who was laying under the nearest stack, she observed him to look very pale, and called upon the prisoner to lift him up, as she thought “he was strangling from the liquor”.  The prisoner held the head of the deceased for an hour or more in his lap, when, in the presence of several people, the deceased expired without having uttered a word, and without a struggle.  The general impression was, as the witnesses all swore, that the deceased had died from the effects of excessive drinking, which remained so till towards the evening of the same day, when the boy stated to his mother and a neighbour, as he swore again at the trial, that he had seen the prisoner run and jump upon the deceased – having, without saying anything at the time, thrown down his flail while thrashing with him; that the deceased had cried out “Oh God!” and turned himself round, immediately after the violent shock occasioned by the jump.  The boy further swore, that one Timson, who had taken the job of thrashing at the place with the prisoner, was present, and called out to the prisoner “Not to touch the deceased”.  This in every point, however, was contradicted by Timson in Court, who swore that the boy was not by the stacks when he went to get the wheat, which he immediately afterwards took to a neighbour’s mill to grind.  The body of the deceased had been afterwards inspected, under an order of the Magistrates, by two Surgeons, who, at the trial, declared the decided opinion to be that the deceased had died not from the effects of suffocation by drinking, but from a rupture of the blood vessel in the thorax, occasioned by great violence of some sort.  Upon this evidence the Court, after the case had been fully summoned up and remarked upon by His Honor the Judge Advocate (Wylde) adjudged the prisoner to be guilty of manslaughter, and that for the offence he be transported to Newcastle for the term of four years.

Thus, Henry BUTLER and Benjamin DAVIS had been drinking at Robert BEAMS’ place when Henry BUTLER had accidentally killed Benjamin DAVIS and was thus sent to Newcastle for four years of hard labour.  

Robert BEAMS appears in the courts again in 1824 regarding the inquest of the death of W CLEMENTS on 1 October 1824 (HRA).

Robert BEAMS stated that on Saturday morning last he promised to lend a musket to Thomas TAYLOR.  He said that TAYLOR had asked him for it when crossing the South Esk River to shoot cockatoos.  It was half stocked with no upper pipe to fasten the ramrod to the barrel, these being connected by a piece of string.  Robert BEAMS stated that he did not deliver the musket to him, but that his wife had told him on Sunday evening that TAYLOR had called for the musket and that it had not yet been returned to him.

Robert’s wife, Susannah, then stated that on Saturday morning last Thomas TAYLOR came to their place and said Robert had said he could use Robert’s musket to shoot cockatoos.  She stated that the musket was laying across the tye beams.  Thomas TAYLOR took the musket down and took it away with him.  It hasn’t been returned since.  Susannah further stated that the musket was half stocked and that the upper pipe was off the barrel and the ramrod was connected to the barrel by a piece of string.

The following is a summary of events relating to Robert BEAMS from May 1830 until 8 February 1832. 

Samuel SOUTHALL, in the presence of David HILLIER, sold an unbranded brindle bull calf to James and/or Robert BEAMS at Launceston for £2 in May 1830.  SOUTHALL made his mark on a receipt for the money and an order was given on William LEITH for the calf.  William LEITH was a convict assigned to a man WADDLE who lived at Quamby Brook near Westbury and agisted about 14 head of cattle for SOUTHALL on a private agreement. 

SOUTHALL either failed to send the order to LEITH or he did not receive it, or James BEAMS, because of his age and inexperience, did not deliver the order to LEITH and just removed the calf from its paddock.  William LEITH stated that he missed the calf about May and next saw it in a nearby paddock, now branded and castrated.  He returned to the paddock that afternoon with a free man to have a close inspection of the calf and then went to Norfolk Plains for a warrant. 

On 3 July, the calf was seen among a mob of cattle being removed from the neighbourhood by Robert and James BEAMS and John MOULDS, and they were arrested by the district constable of Norfolk Plains for cattle stealing on the warrant obtained by LEITH. 

Cattle theft at that time was considered a capital crime, the cases to be heard before the Supreme Court which usually only sat in Launceston every two or three years.  If someone was arrested on the suspicion of committing a capital crime they were imprisoned until such time of the next sitting of the court.  This was so in the case of Robert BEAMS, James BEAMS and John MOULDS, who were held untried from July 1830 until February 1832.  Robert, James and John were tried on 8 February 1832 at the Supreme Court, James for cattle stealing and Robert and John for receiving.  All were found not guilty (SC 41/4 p29).

SOUTHALL and HILLIER both stated they were questioned about the time of the arrest.  The authorities therefore must have fully been aware that there was no case to be answered for, so why were Robert and James continued to be imprisoned.  The police magistrate of the time wrote in 1832 that they believed the family were the main abettors of the bushrangers BRITTON and BEVAN so that by removing Robert, James and the unfortunate John MOULDS from the scene, the main source of supply to the brushrangers would be cut off. 

At the time of the arrest, Susannah would have been pregnant with Diana, their tenth child, with five other of their children 13 years old or younger, and the family would have had to make do as best as possible.  Thomas BEAMS (brother to Robert) had died 18 months previously, so there would have been little help from that direction.

An article in the Launceston Advertisor on 25 January 1832 read:

It is really one of the most distressing and painful cases which we ever have met with that prisoners should be kept so long confined before trial.  The case of the man BEAMS who has been so long confined, is horrid; the whole family has gone to ruin – ruin of the most awful kind; the man is in a state of distraction; and the property has all gone to wreck, from the time these unfortunate people have been in confinement, on a charge which will in all human probability be dismissed at the Supreme Court.  These persons have been sent to Hobart Town, again returned to Launceston, and now languish in prison, untried; and this after a lapse of about three years.   Many other similar cases might be cited, but this sufficient to show the injustice, barbarity – nay, illegality of the system pursued towards Launceston in every particular.

Further information and details of the actual trial are documented in the Launceston Advertisor of 8 February 1832.  An article in the Launceston Advertisor of 15 Feburary 1832 stated:

The all-absorbing topic of the present moment is the Sessions of the Criminal Court; an event which is, indeed, a rare one, seeing that it is now two years and upwards since His Honour the Chief Justice paid a visit to Launceston.  The result is painfully apparent in the acquittal of persons so long confined in gaol, before trial.  We have, first, the BEAMS’s case, in which there was scarcely sufficient evidence, uncontradicted, to warrant even a committal – much less on information.  With the testimonies of Hillier and Southall – the open conduct of the youth Beams – the total absence of concealment or disfigurement of the beast, opposed to the vague allegations of the witnesses for the prosecution; it is surprising that any bill was found by the Attorney-General, in this case.  With regard to the committing magistrate, we cannot help thinking he had sufficient grounds for dismissing the complaint; and therefore conceive that this case neither redounds to the credit or humanity of any one or other of the getters up of the prosecution.

Whilst Robert and his son James were languishing in gaol awaiting trial, Robert’s daughter, Mary BEAMS was in distress.  A series of five letters were written between 28 March 1831 and 8 March 1832 regarding Mary’s situation.  On 28 March 1831 Robert wrote to the Honorable J BURNETT, Colonial Secretary from Launceston Gaol.  This letter is transcribed below.

Sir, Under circumstances of the most distressing and aggravated Nature, and being without relief save by applying to His Excellency, and fully trusting, that such relief may be given me, as the nature there of seem to require.  I therefore humbly beg to state, that since I have been imprisoned in this Gaol, a Man named James McGarrett (holding a Ticket of Leave) residing on a Farm of Mr. Scott's at the Springs, Bredalbane, in this District, has seduced my Daughter, Mary Beames (about 17 years of Age) from her Home, and my Wife, and already too much distressed Family, under the promise of Marriage; but not withstanding all his promises, he still persists in going forward, in his most improper Conduct, and when he has been remonstrated with, on the very gross impropriety with which he carries on, with my Daughter, he has only given the height of ill language, and slighted all what has been said to him on the subject, thinking (I suppose) that as the Father and Protector of this unfortunate Girl is incarcerated within the Walls of a Prison that the Hand of Justice is unable to overtake him.  I took "McGarrett" before a Magistrate, when he offered to marry my Daughter, but as I thought he could not have any real regard for her, I then refused, but was afterwards induced to give my consent, in consequence of the unfortunate circumstances that took place, but since I withdrew my object he has refused to marry her, and has been ever since, trifling with the girl and myself.  I beg to add that I have made known the forgoing case to the Rev. Dr. Brown, who has always expressed his strongest disapproval of the conduct of James McGarrett, and that he would punish him, if he could.  Under these most distressing circumstances, I trust His Excellency will be graciously pleased to interfere, and cause James McGarrett to be dealt with as the nature of this distressing and aggravating case may appear to His sense of Justice to require, will confer one of the greatest earthly comforts, on the Father of this unfortunate Girl, and the already distressed Wife and Family of; Your Honor's Most obedient, very humble Servant, Robert Beams.

A notation at the side of this letter, dated 31 March 1831 and initialled by J BURNETT, read:

Refer to Dr. Brown – who may intimate to McGarrett if this treatment be correct that he will lose his Ticket unless He does justice to the young woman whom he has seduced. 

The second letter on this matter is dated 10 July 1831 and addressed to the Colonial Secretary, J. BURNETT at the Police Office.  It is from W. LYTTLETON.

Sir, I have the honor to enclose the papers relative to the case of James McGarrett and I beg leave to submit for the information of His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor, the following particulars.  In the early part of June, 1830, Robert Beams pressed a complaint against James McGarrett for having seduced his Daughter, Mary Beams, and McGarrett was sent for to answer the charges.  On his appearing at the Police Office, I admonished him for his conduct, and proposed that he should repair the injury done to Mary Beams and her Family by Marriage, which he consented to do so, but on reference to the Father, Robert Beams, he refused his consent.  Finding Beams obdurate in his ... I referred the Matter to the decision of a Bench of Magistrates, but having been sent for to attend the Supreme Court, then sitting, I was prevented from being present, and the Case was heard by Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Barnes.  These Gentlemen having urged Beams by every means in their power to consent to the Marriage, but without effect, dismissed the charges, with the impression that Beam's object was to extort money, and enjoined McGarrett to have no further connection with Mary Beams, who immediately left him.  Her conduct since this period has been extremely bad - James McGarrett now expresses his willingness to me, to fulfill his former offer of marriage rather than lose his Ticket of Leave, but expresses a hope that His Excellency will not resort to this alternative in consequence of the bad course of life pursued by Mary Beams since leaving him.  The statement made by Beams, that he was in Jail when this transaction took place, is incorrect, it having occurred three months previous to his confinement, which was in September.  Should it be His Excellency's pleasure that I should do so, I will send for both the parties to compel the fulfillments of his commands.  I have known James Beams for many years, he was always an indifferent character, I have the honor to be Sir, Your most obediant humble servant, W. Lyttleton.

Why W LYTTLETON refers here to James BEAMS at the end of the letter is unclear, except that James was at the time imprisoned with his father Robert.  James, of course, is also Mary’s brother.

A notation at the side of this letter, again initialled by J. BURNETT, reads:

Refer to Dr. Browne.  Under the circumstances stated by Mr Lyttleton, I do not think it would be just either to deprive this man of his Ticket of Leave, or compel him to marry.

The third letter, dated 29 June 1831, is addressed to Hon J. BURNETT Esq from the Rev. Dr. BROWN of Launceston.

Sir, I have the honor to action Beam's letter respecting McGarrett and to state that I communicated to the latter the subject of your letter, when he said it was hard to make him marry so abandoned a woman, but he would see her; since which time the young woman has not come near me, and I have heard that she is living with McGarrett.  I am Sir, your most humble Servant.

The fourth letter, which was written by Robert BEAMS, is addressed to His Excellency, Colonel George ARTHUR, Lieutenant Governor at Launceston on 18 February 1832.

Sir, I most respectfully beg leave once more to trespass on your Excellency's valuable time by laying before your humane and benevolent consideration my most painful and aggravating situation, and occasioned by James McGarrett at present holding a Ticket of Leave, he having during the course of my late confinement in Prison, by his insidious, crafty sided iniquitous fabrications; seduced my Daughter, and after reducing her to the most abandoned state of profligacy turned adrift on the world.  Your Excellency can form an idea from being a Parent what a heart rending meditation it must have been for me placed within the walls of a Prison, when I received the intelligence from my unprotected family and supposing he had escaped the hands of Justice persisting in his iniquitous ... and even upbraiding my Family with the very misery his villainy created by plunging the unfortunate female into utter destruction ‑ the thoughts of such diabolical proceedings has almost drove me to a state of deliricency.  For Your Excellency's further benign consideration, I humbly beg to state that the Rev. W. H. Brown ... highly disapproves of His (McGarrett's) conduct towards my Family and recommended me now that a Jury of my country has acquitted me of the foul charge for which I have been deprived of my liberty for nineteen months, to the serious injury of my health, and the utter destruction of my profurity, but I beg leave Sir respectively to say that these are nothing in my mind to the maddening apprehension of His triumphed insult being again repeated.  Steadfastly relying Your Excellency will be graciously pleased to grant Your favorable consideration to this distressing and painful ... towards an unfortunate and much disconsolate Wife and Family sincerely trusting in the plenitude of Your Excellency's well known goodness and humanity You may adopt such means as your Superior Judgement may deem fit to punish such malicious and detestable proceedings.  I am, with the most profound Respect, Sir., Your Excellency's very Humble obedient ... Servant. Robert Beams.

The fifth and final letter of the series is addressed to The Honorable John BURNETT Esq, from W. LYTTLETON, the Police Magistrate at Launceston.  It was sent from Launceston on 8 March 1832.

Sir, In reply to the ... Letter 11225.  I have the honor to state that the complaint of Robert Beams alluded to in this letter respecting James McGarrett, has been twice investigated, once before a Bench of Magistrates at this Office and that a report of the same was made by me in answer to a reference from His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor, respecting a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Browne, this report was forwarded to your office on the 16th July 1831 ‑ Wherein it will appear, that the complaint against McGarrett, originated before Beams was in Jail at all ‑ that he appeared before the Magistrates in person to prefer his complaints; and it appearing on his refusal to consent to the Marriage of his Daughter, that his object was to extort money; his complaint was dismissed.  I beg leave to add that Beams, and his Son, although acquitted by a Jury upon evidence produced against them, are notorious two characters, and have to my knowledge, for many years been connected with the worst characters in the District where they abide, they have been the chief abettors of the Bushrangers Britton, and Bevan, and I have no doubt the former of these outlaws is still ... by the assistance of their Family.  I have the honor ... Sir. Your most obedient humble Servant. W. Lyttleton.

It is unclear reading these letters now what is the “real” story.  Was Mary BEAMS “wickedly” seduced by James MCGARRETT, or was she a “loose woman”?  Did LYTTLETON deliberately misconstrue the information he gave to J BURNETT because of his conviction that Robert BEAMS aided and abetted bushrangers?  Suffice to say, however, that great damage was caused to Robert’s family whilst he and his son James were imprisoned awaiting trial for a crime for which there was little evidence for prosecution.

TOP

Freedom

As a result of Robert BEAMS’ deposition, it seems that PATERSON recommended him for a Conditional Pardon.

KING replied to PATERSON on 26 November 1805, noting:

From your recommendation, and the pointed Notice You take of the good conduct of Thomas Massey and Robert Beams I shall not be forgetful of the latter by giving him a conditional Emancipation If his Conduct should not in the meantime forfeit it. (p.510 of Governor King’s Letter Book 1797-1806)

PATERSON replied to KING on 11 December 1805:

I feel much obliged for your attention to Beams.  We all think that he is honest and useful.  With respect of his having any particular charge about the Store in Riley’s absence I shall arrange in a manner which I am sure will be satisfactory.  (HRA)

KING replied to PATERSON in June 1806:

I have directed Conditional Emancipations to be made out for Robert Beams and … in consequence of Your Recommendation.  (Governor King’s Letter Book)

Thus, Robert was recommended for a Conditional Pardon by Governor KING in June 1806.  The Colonial Secretary's Register of Conditional Pardons (1791-1825) lists Robert as receiving his conditional pardon on 4 June 1806.

TOP

Marriage

Robert BEAMS married Susannah BRELSFORD at St John’s Church, Launceston on 4 March 1811.  They were married by Banns by Robert KNOPWOOD.  This was only the seventh marriage performed in the north of the Van Diemen's Land!

Witnesses to the marriage were W HENRY and Js MACCONNELL.  Both Robert and Susannah were single at the time of the marriage and living in Launceston.

Robert was a witness to the next marriage performed that day - a marriage between William PIGEON and Hannah HUNTER.

TOP

Occupations

The Historical Records of Australia states that on 18 February 1809 an agreement was made with Thomas PHILLIP and Robert BEAMS to make 30,000 bricks for which they would be paid 6 ewes.  

Thus, Robert must have been working as a brick maker at this time.  However, it would seem that by this trade, Robert was intending to become a farmer.  

A Government Public Notice in the Hobart Town Gazette of Saturday, 30 May 1818, stated that Robert BEAMS was approved and confirmed on 18 May 1818 by the Commandant of Port Dalrymple as a District Constable (one of 14) in the County of Cornwall.  Robert was appointed to Norfolk Plains with Thomas STEVENS.  Robert had again changed his occupation.   At the same time, Robert's brother Thomas was appointed a Town Constable (one of thirteen).  The Chief Constable was Mr Thomas MASSEY.

On 27 April 1820, Robert BEAMS of Norfolk Plains was listed as town constable/ district constable doing duty at Launceston. 

Robert continued to farm after the death of Susannah.  On 1 May 1858, he was renting part of the farm Calstock (240 acres valued at £36) near Deloraine from John Field; and on 1 December 1858, Robert was listed in and erased from the Westbury District Valuation Rolls as the occupier of a 110 acre farm at Marsh Paddock, Exton.  The farm was owned by T W Field of Westfield and valued at £55.  It is likely that Robert had been renting the property, but no longer was, or the property had changed ownership. 

TOP

Property

On 9 May 1809, Robert BEAMS was granted 30 acres of land.  Later, as detailed in the HRA, memorandums from Major GORDON, Commandant at Port Dalrymple stated that:

Some small farms, having through mistake been located to different Individuals on the Two Thousand Acres of Land granted by me some time since to Mrs. Colonel Paterson – Compensation for the expense of their improvements – Robt. Beams, 50 acres.

Thus, Robert BEAMS lost his land grant due to an administrative blunder!  

On the 1 January 1817, Robert was granted 60 acres of land at Norfolk Plains.  The land grant (LSD 354/3 p.104) read:

Unto Robert Beams his Heirs and Assigns to have and to hold for ever, Sixty Acres of Land lying and situate in the District of Norfolk Plains, Van Diemen’s Land – Bounded on the North West side by Henry Wilkinson’s farm – On the South West side by a line bearing South twenty five degrees East thirteen chains – On the South East side by a line bearing East twenty five degrees North fifty six chains to the lake River – And on the North East side by that River – Conditioned – Not to sell or alienate the same for the space of Five years from the date hereof, And to Cultivate Sixteen Acres within the said Period, and reserving to Government the right of making a Public Road through the same, And also reserving for the Use of the Crown such timber as may be deemed fit for Naval Purposes – Quit Rent – One Shilling.

In testimony &c. this 1^st day of January 1817
”Signed” “L. Macquarie”

The land grant was witnessed by H C Antill and Joseph Cowgill, and was registered in the Secretary’s Office at Sydney for transcription in Van Diemen’s Land on 6 July 1820.

At the time of the 1818 muster (census), Robert held a land grant of 200 acres in total, of which 150 acres were set aside for grazing, 45 acres under wheat, 4 acres under barley, and 1 acre growing potatoes.  In addition, he owned 29 head of cattle and two horses.  Robert also had one crown prisoner as an assigned government servant at George Town, Port Dalrymple (HRA).

In the 1819 landholders muster for Cornwall, Robert is listed as having been granted 200 acres of land by  Governor MACQUARIE comprising:

He was also listed as having one crown servant who was off the stores.

In a notice in the Hobart Town Gazette of 27 June 1829 regarding quit rents owed on land, Robert was listed as owing 7 shillings on his 60 acres at Norfolk Plains which was granted to him by Governor Macquarie on 1 January 1817.  The annual rent due on this land was £1, with the first amount having been due on 1 January 1823.

In 1839 Robert put a land grant application for just over 50 acres at Perth, land which he stated he had held since circa 1819.  The notice from the Commissioner’s Office dated 23 August 1839 and published in the Hobart Town Gazette on 23 August, 30 August and 6 September 1839 reads:

Notice is hereby given that the following claims for Grants will be ready for examination by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose, upon or immediately after the 24^th day of October next, on or before which day any caveat or counter claim must be entered.”

ROBERT BEAMS.  Perth.
51A     1R     0P

(Originally John Davis, who sold to C. B. Hardwick, Esq., who sold to the applicant. – Claim renewed 21^st May, 1839.)

Bounded on the north east by 12 chains 70 links south-easterly along land originally located to Thomas Lucas but since granted to John Stephens commencing at its western angle, thence on the south east by 44 chains 25 links south-westerly along land originally located to John Knowland but since granted to John Charles Nicholson to the South Esk River, thence on the south west by the course of the said river north-westerly to land originally located to Neil Herringan but since granted to Samuel Cox, and thence on the north west by 43 chains 20 links north-easterly along the said land to the point of commencement.

However, it would appear from the publication in the Hobart Town Gazette of the following notice from the Commissioner’s Office dated 15 November 1839 that Richard James put in a caveat against Robert's application, claiming that he owned the land, it having been sold to him by Robert's son, Edward. 

Notice is hereby given that the following claims for Grants will be ready for examination by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose, upon or immediately after the 16^th day of January next, on or before which day any caveat or counter claim must be entered.”

RICHARD JAMES.  Perth.
51A     1R     0P

(Originally John Davis, who sold to John Moore, who sold to C. B. Hardwicke, who sold to Robert Beams, who sold to Thomas Smith deceased, whose widow gave the said land to Edward Beams, who sold to the applicant. – Claim dated 21^st October, 1839.)

Bounded on the north east by 12 chains 70 links south-easterly along land originally located to Thomas Lucas but since granted to John Stephens commencing at its western angle, thence on the south east by 44 chains 25 links south-westerly along land originally located to John Knowland but since granted to John Charles Nicholson to the South Esk River, thence on the south west by the course of the said river north-westerly to land originally located to Neil             but since granted to Samuel Cox, and thence on the north west by 43 chains 20 links north-easterly along the said land to the point of commencement.

In response to James' claim, a creditor of Robert's, John Smith, and his solicitor, Henry Jennings, put in an application for the grant of land - the following notice from the Commissioner's Office dated 20 May 1840, for the same land, appears in the Hobart Town Gazette on 22 May 1840.

Notice is hereby given that the following claims for Grants will be ready for examination by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose, upon or immediately after the 20^th day of July next, on or before which day any caveat or counter claim must be entered.”

JOHN SMITH AND HENRY JENNINGS. 
Perth, Cornwall.
51A     1R     0P

(Originally John Davies, who sold to John Moore, who sold to C. B. Hardwicke, who sold to Robert Beams, who conveyed to the applicants in trust for the benefit of his creditors. – Claim renewed 27^th February, 1839.)

Bounded on the south east by 44 chains 25 links north-easterly along a location to John Knowland (now granted to John Charles Nicholson) from the South Esk River, on the north east by 12 chains 19 links north-westerly along a location to John Stevens, on the north west by 43 chains 20 links south-westerly along a location to Neal Harrigan to the aforesaid South Esk River and thence on the south-western side by that river to the point of commencement.

After an exhaustive hearing which extended over five years, on and off, the land was finally granted to Richard JAMES who promptly sold it on to Samuel COX who owned some of the adjoining land.

TOP

Provision

In the 1819 Cornwall Landholders Muster, Robert his listed as being the proprietor of 200 acres - victualled (on the stores) with a wife and two children on the stores and two children off the stores.  He also had a crown servant off the stores.

TOP

Siblings

In 1817, Robert was joined at Port Dalrymple by his brother, Thomas, from Sydney. Thomas had been tried and transported with Robert to Sydney in 1803. Robert may have had other brothers and sisters as some of the parish records for Down Ampney have been lost for the years when his parents were having children.

TOP

Transportation

The Coromandel (2) sailed from Portsmouth on 4 December 1803, arriving in Sydney on 7 May 1804.  Robert BEAMS was sent, with a group of 74 convicts from the Coromandel to Port Dalrymple with Lieutenant Colonel PATERSON to found a settlement in the northern part of Van Diemen’s Land.  They left Sydney on 15 October 1804, arriving at Port Dalrymple by the end of 1804.

Robert's indent lists the ship as Coromandel/Experiment and gives his convict number as 785.

TOP

Trial

At the King’s Commission of the Peace, Middlesex on 25 May 1803, before Mr Justice Grose, Robert was charged with stealing from the house of William PHILPOT, on 18 April 1803, 56 silk handkerchiefs to the value of 81.8s.  Thomas was charged with receiving 45 of the silk handkerchiefs as a parcel, knowing the handkerchiefs to have been stolen. 

At the trial, William PHILPOT, a linen-draper living at 283 Holborn in the parish of St Giles in the Fields, gave evidence.  He stated that Robert BEAMS was recommended to him as a shopman and lived with him for about four months.  On 19 April Mr JONES came to his house, called Robert BEAMS upstairs and asked Robert if he had stolen any silk handkerchiefs from him. 

The prosecutor (or defense counsel?), Mr KNAPP, then asked William PHILPOT if he or Mr JONES had made Robert BEAMS any promise or favour if he would discover anything.  William PHILPOT replied no, neither of them had.  When Robert BEAMS was asked by Mr JONES if he had stolen any handkerchiefs, he replied no and said Mr JONES was mistaken.  Mr JONES replied he believed he would find he was not mistaken and that he would soon be able to produce the proof.  Mr JONES said he believed Robert BEAMS had taken 12, 18 or more, maybe at one time, maybe at several.

William PHILPOT then went on to say that the police officer TREADWAY and a man named Mr OVEY who were waiting outside were called in so they could go upstairs and examine Robert BEAMS’ box.  Robert BEAMS went up with them and TREADWAY asked him for the key to his box, which Robert handed over.  The box was opened in his presence and all parties present examined it, finding one silk handkerchief which he told the officer in front of them all he had stolen from William PHILPOT.  William PHILPOT confirmed it was his handkerchief and so they all took Robert to Bow Street Police Station, TREADWAY, the police officer, taking the handkerchief.

William PHILPOT further gave evidence that he then went with Mr JONES and Mr OVEY, to Mr OVEY's house in Tavistock-Street, Covent Garden.  They then went into a house in Southampton Street, which he believed belonged to Mr OVEY.  Here, a Mr BLISS, one of Mr OVEY's shopmen, produced a bundle of silk handkerchiefs which William PHILPOT examined.  William PHILPOT stated that he dealt very largely in the article, that in general the marks had been taken out, but that he found one or two which he could swear were his. 

Mr KNAPP then asked William PHILPOT if he knew of any circumstance which could prove that Robert BEAMS carried the handkerchiefs to the place where they were found.  William PHILPOT replied that he didn’t know of any such circumstance.  Mr KNAPP followed up by asking William PHILPOT, if Robert BEAMS had to opportunity to take these handkerchiefs to this place in small parcels.  William PHILPOT replied that Robert BEAMS did have such opportunity.

Mr KNAPP then stated that William PHILPOT had said that he did not make any promise to Robert BEAMS and that Robert BEAMS denied having taken any handkerchiefs.  He then asked if Mr JONES had told Robert BEAMS that it would be better for him if he confessed.  William PHILPOT replied, “not in the least”.

The next witness at the trial was Isaac BLISS.  He stated that he found the handkerchiefs in the trunk of Thomas BEAMS on the evening of 18 April, upstairs in his bedroom at Mr OVEY’s, 22 Tavistock Stret, Covent Garden.  He stated that Thomas BEAMS had said they belonged to his brother.  Mr KNAPP then asked Isaac BLISS if any promise was made to Thomas BEAMS to say anything about the handkerchiefs.  Isaac BLISS replied that no promises were made.

Edward TREADWAY, the police officer, was the next witness at the trial.  He swore that on Tuesday, 19 April 1803, he went to the house of Mr PHILPOT in Holborn where Mr PHILPOT gave him charge of his servant, Robert BEAMS.  Upon searching his box, Robert BEAMS gave Edward TREADWAY a silk handkerchief (shown in court) and said it was his master’s property and that he had had it about a month or six weeks.

Mr KNAPP then questioned Edward TREADWAY asking him if he made any promise to induce Robert BEAMS to tell him that.  Edward TREADWAY replied that no, he hadn’t done so. 

PHILPOT then stated that he knew pattern, there was no mark upon it.  He was asked, “You don’t know that this property belongs to you, but from what the prisoner said?”  PHILPOT replied, “no”.  PHILPOT was then asked if he had such handkerchiefs.  PHILPOT replied that yes, he had a great many of them while Robert BEAMS lived with him.

John JONES next gave evidence.  He swore that he saw the handkerchiefs in Mr OVEY’s drawing room whilst Thomas BEAMS was present.  JONES questioned Thomas BEAMS about the length of time the handkerchiefs had been in his possession.  Thomas BEAMS had replied two years.  JONES then asked Thomas BEAMS from whom he had received the handkerchiefs and Thomas BEAMS replied that he had received them from Mr COOK whom he had accidentally met him in the Park and that about a month after making his acquaintance COOK had told Thomas BEAMS he had a quantity of silk handkerchiefs in pawn for five pounds.  Thomas BEAMS bought these handkerchiefs from COOK for the five pounds.

JONES then asked Thomas BEAMS why Mr COOK had sold him the handkerchiefs in pawn for five pounds when he must have paid five pounds and some interest on them.  Thomas BEAMS gave no immediate answer.  JONES continued on to say that about one o’clock in the morning he went with Mr OVEY to take Thomas BEAMS to the watch-house.  On their way there, Thomas BEAMS asked to go back to Mr OVEY’s house as he had something further to say regarding the handkerchiefs.  Upon returning to Mr OVEY’s house, Thomas BEAMS admitted that everything he had said before was false, that he had got the handkerchiefs from his brother who lived with Mr PHILPOT at the corner of Turnstile and Holborn.  JONES then stated that he went to Mr PHILPOT the next morning to inform him of this information.

Mr KNAPP then asked Mr JONES if he was present when Robert BEAMS was searched.  In answer, Mr JONES stated that he went upstairs after the box had been searched and heard Robert BEAMS admit that the handkerchief was Mr PHILPOT’s.  Mr KNAPP then asked if he Robert BEAMS had been made any promise either by himself or anyone else present.  Mr JONES replied that on the contrary, the moment Thomas BEAMS said he had something further to state, provided Mr OVEY would forgive him, Mr JONES prevented a reply.  Mr KNAPP then stated that Mr JONES’ response pertained to Thomas whereas he had asked about Robert BEAMS.  Mr JONES subsequently answered that he had heard nothing that applied to Robert BEAMS.

Mr KNAPP then asked Mr JONES if he saw Robert in the shop before he went upstairs.  Mr JONES replied that he had.  Mr KNAPP then asked if Mr JONES had said to Robert BEAMS that it would be better for him to confess.  Mr JONES replied that he did not.

The handkerchiefs were then produced by Edward TREADWAY and two of them, which had marks on them, were identified by PHILPOT.

Robert BEAMS then gave his defence.  He stated that even though Mr PHILPOT and Mr JONES testified that they never held out any promise to him, when he came into the parlour, Mr JONES said that this was a serious case, that a number of things had been found, that it did not signify anything for him to deny it and that if he expected any favour the best thing for him was to confess.  Robert BEAMS stated that Mr JONES said this to him several times and when they took him to Bow Street, Robert BEAMS stated that Mr PHILPOT and Mr JONES pressed him strongly to confess, saying it would be best for him that way, if he expected any mercy, as there were many things very clear against him.  Robert BEAMS further stated that when he would confess nothing, Mr JONES went again in a rage into the Office.

After this examination, when Robert and Thomas BEAMS were committed, the went into the Brown Bear (an ale house?) whereupon JONES came and sat down by Robert BEAMS and said it was a very bad business, and that if Robert could make any discoveries, then it would be better for him.  Robert BEAMS told JONES that he had nothing further to confess.  Robert further stated that Mr PHILPOT then came to him and said there were two silk handkerchiefs that Thomas had sent into the country.  Robert replied that he knew nothing of it, that he knew nothing of the concerns of his brother.  Only then did JONES and PHILPOT leave them after having pressed them very hard to confess.

Robert BEAMS continued to give evidence saying that the following Sunday Mr PHILPOT came to him alone at the New Prison in Clerkenwell and said, “If you have robbed me to any considerable amount, if you confess it, it shall not operate against you”, repeating it several times then and at other time.

Thomas BEAMS then gave his defence.  He stated that he had nothing to say in his defence. 

A question was then put to Mr JONES, “Is what the prisoner says, true?”  JONES answered “no”.  The same question was then put to PHILPOT.  He answered “No, it is not”.

Robert BEAMS then stated that he used frequently to want goods for his friends and that Mr PHILPOT had said that he might take anything he wanted.  PHILPOT was then asked if he suffered Robert BEAMS to take goods.  PHILPOT replied that the shopmen sometimes want goods for their friends, but they are always entered in the accounts.

Robert BEAMS called two witnesses who gave him a good character reference.

Robert BEAMS, aged 19 years, was found GUILTY of stealing to the value of 5 shillings and sentenced to seven years transportation.  Thomas BEAMS was found NOT GUILTY.

Strangely enough, however, both Robert and Thomas were committed to Newgate Prison following their trials (was Thomas tried for something else about the same time?).  They were later embarked on the convict transport Coromandel (2) in October 1803 at Woolwich.

TOP

If you have any queries or comments, please email me.
I am willing to provide source details upon request.