Family Treeof Trudy Mae COWLEY
|
|
BurialWilliam was buried as a free man in St David’s Cemetery (now St David’s Park), Hobart Town by Reverend Robert KNOPWOOD on 26 December 1822. Esther was later buried with him. A headstone was erected by the family in 1826, but is no longer in existence. CensusWilliam
was listed as having a wife and five dependent children in the settlers and
landholders muster of 2 August 1807 at Norfolk Island. In the
general muster of 1809 held at the River Derwent, Van Diemen’s Land, William
was listed as having a wife and five dependent children.
They were living at Sandy Bay and all of them were victualled from the
stores. By 1818, William and Esther
only had three dependent children and by the time of the 1819 muster held for
the district of Hobart Town they had only two dependent children.
In the 1822 Hobart Town muster, William was listed as having one female
dependent child (Sophia?). Esther
was listed separately. In the
muster of 1811, held in Hobart on 21 March 1811, William was listed. ChildrenAccording to an article at http://www.linkt.com.au/~jdark/nathresearch.htm (sourced on 21 June 2002), it is possible that William and Esther were profound Royalists since their eldest daughter was named Anne after the Queen and their eldest son was named William after the King. In this article, the
author hypothesises that 15 families on Norfolk Island at the time William and
Esther were there were profound Royalists as all of them named their eldest born
son William and their eldest born daughter Anne. The majority of other families on Norfolk Island at the time
named their eldest born son after the father and their eldest born daughter
after the mother. Included in the
other 15 families are Nathaniel LUCAS and Olivia GASCOIGNE. Elizabeth’s birth/baptism was recorded on the St Phillip’s Church Register, Sydney. It is possible the other five children were christened on arrival in Hobart (possibly at St David’s or Queenborough), as there were limited opportunities for religious ceremonies on Norfolk Island. It is interesting that Sophia
is not mentioned as a child of William and Esther on their embarkation per City
of Edinburgh, though Sophia was aged 10 months at this stage.
It is possible that because she was still being breast fed and so did not
require rations from the stores, she was not listed. Community LifeOn 12 December 1806, William SHERBURD signed his name to a ‘humble memorial of the settlers and landholders of Norfolk Island' to Captain John PIPER, Commandant. This memorial sought a higher return for swine, wheat and maize due to unfavourable wheat and maize crops. It would seem that this memorial was successful as William received sixpence per pound, an increase of one pence per pound, for his swine’s flesh in 1807. William
lived in the Queenborough district the whole time he resided in Van Diemen’s
Land. He was a signatory on a
petition in 1815 from the inhabitants from outside Hobart Town for the
establishment of a criminal court in the district of Hobart Town. DeathWilliam died
on 24 December 1822 at Sandy Bay aged 62 years.
His death notice in the Hobart Town
Gazette 28 December 1822 read: Died
– On Tuesday last, Mr William Sherbert, settler, at Sandy Bay, aged 62, an
inhabitant for nearly 33 years in these Colonies. DescriptionWilliam was educated – he could read and write. William was known by the nickname of Billy. In his
trial record, William was described as a square man of large features, including
a very large nose. He was also a
little marked with the small pox. One can only surmise and speculate how difficult and challenging was William’s life. He was tried twice for hanging offences and thrice transported/shipped to a new colony (Sydney Cove, Norfolk Island and Van Diemen’s Land). He languished in Newgate Gaol for three years before embarking per Scarborough and then survived the horrific voyage when she sailed as part of the death fleet. He pulled his family through severe ration shortages at both Norfolk Island and the Derwent River. Furthermore, he did not re-offend once he set foot in Australia! It can only be concluded that he was made of “strong stuff”. FreedomExactly
three months after obtaining the lease on his land where the airport now stands,
William’s sentence expired. However,
previous to this, he was granted an absolute pardon by Governor HUNTER on 13
September 1796, just prior to receiving his land grant.
His pardon read as follows: Whereas
His Majesty by a Commission under the Great Seal of Great Britain having date
the eighth day of November in the thirty first year of His Majesty’s Reign has
been graciously pleased to give & Grant full Power of Authority to the
Governor for in case of his death or absence the Lieutenant Governor for the
time being of His Majesty’s Territory of the Eastern Coast of New South Wales,
& the Islands thereunto adjacent by an Instrument or Instruments in writing,
under the Seal of the Government of the said Territory, or as he or they
respectively shall think fit & Convenient for His Majesty’s Service to
remit either Absolutely or Conditionally the whole or any part of the Term or
Time, for which Felons or other Offenders shall have been, or shall hereafter be
respectively conveyed & Transported to the Eastern Coast of New South Wales,
or to the Islands thereunto adjacent. By
Virtue of the Power & Authority rested as aforesaid, I John Hunter Esqr
His majesty’s Governor of the said Territory, New South Wales & its
dependencies taking into consideration the good Behaviour of William Sherburd,
& at the recommendation of Lieutenant Governor King, do hereby in
consideration of these circumstances Absolutely remit the remainder of
the Term or Time, which is yet unexpired of the Original Sentence, or order of
Transportation passed on the said William Sherburd, in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred & Given
under my Hand & the Seal of the Territory, at Sydney, this 13th
or 15th day of September in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred & ninety six. Signed
Jno Hunter Registered
in the Secretary’s Office. ImmigrationOn
17 September 1807, the government gave a general order that settlers and their
families were to be removed to Hobart Town – William, his wife Esther and five
children were among those listed to be removed. The authorities had decided to abandon the settlement at
Norfolk Island and remove everyone to Van Diemen’s Land. A year later on 3 September 1808, William, Esther, their two sons (William and John) and four daughters (Ann, Elizabeth, Mary and Esther) embarked from Norfolk Island for Hobart Town per City of Edinburgh. The ship’s master was Simeon PATTERSON. The family is listed on the Memorial to the First Fleeters and Norfolk Islanders who came to Van Diemen’s Land during the evacuation 1807-1813 in St David’s Park, Hobart.
Marriage 1While he was still living at home, William SHERBURD married Lucy BOYNET on 5 February 1782 at St Dunstan’s Church in Stepney, London. William and Lucy had no children and when William was transported, Lucy remarried William WILLIAMS on 19 July 1790 at St Dunstan’s Church. How she accounted for already being married (and in the same church!) is pure speculation! Marriage 2Only five to eight weeks after landing at Sydney Cove, on 30 July 1790, William SHERBURD married Esther THORNTON, the service being conducted by Richard JOHNSON, Chaplain of the colony. The marriage was recorded in the St Phillip’s Church Register, though no church had been built at this time. They
were married by Banns which were twice published, the third publication
dispensed with because Esther was draughted off to Norfolk Island.
Witnesses to the marriage were Thomas SARGENT and Margaret WOOD.
William and Richard signed their names, Esther and Margaret made their
marks. Thomas
SARGENT and Margaret WOODS were also witnesses to the previous wedding (on the
same day) and William SHERBURD was a witness to Thomas SARGENT’s marriage to
Jane TAYLOR, also on the say day.
Cobley
(1963) notes that for Friday, 30 July 1790: Six
weddings were celebrated. In five
of these, the marriage took place before the banns had been published three
times, as the parties were about to leave for Norfolk Island. Thomas SARGENT had also been transported per Scarborough 2, having been tried in Middlesex on 9 September 1789 and sentenced to transportation for life. Margaret WOOD had been transported per Lady Juliana, having been tried in London in April 1787 with her death sentence commuted to 7 years transportation. William THORNE had also been transported per Scarborough 2, having been tried at Middlesex on 9 September 1789 and sentenced to transportation for life. It is likely that Esther knew William whilst they were in Newgate Gaol together for 2-3 years. This could help explain why they were willing to marry so quickly upon arrival at Sydney Cove. It is even possible that William protected Esther whilst she was in gaol at Newgate. OccupationsAccording to Ryan (1982), in January 1792, as well as working his own land, William was employed by John DRUMMOND, a free settler on Norfolk Island who had arrived in the colony as a seaman of the first fleet. This would have brought in extra capital to the SHERBURD household. As
overseer of stock of the government’s swineherd at Queenborough, William
signed receipts from His Majesty’s stores for feed for the swineherd.
William signed for: ·
1273 ½ bushels of maize on 31 December 1804; ·
289 bushels of damaged wheat and 1189 bushels
of maize for the period 1 January to 30 June 1805; ·
1344 bushels of maize for the period 1 July to
31 December 1805; and ·
110 bushels of maize for the period 1 July 1806
to 12 August 1806. As
overseer of stock, William, along with Edward KIMBERLY, signed the following
statement on 30 June 1806: We
the undersigned do hereby certify that in obedience to an order from the
Commandant we took a ??? & impartial survey of the damages done by the
publick stock to the crops belonging to the above mentioned persons [William
Hutchinson – 160 bushels of maize; Thomas Brennan – 866 bushels of maize],
and that, we are of opinion it is equal to the qty of maize expressed against
their names. The
Colonial Secretary’s papers document that William provided goods to the
Norfolk Island stores on several occasions as a result of his farming
activities, which he conducted alongside his position as overseer of stock. ·
On 3 July 1804, he provided 1219 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 24 January 1805, he provided 24 bushels of
wheat, receiving 8 shillings per bushel. ·
On 21 March 1805, he provided 794 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 2 May 1805, he provided 841 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 11 May 1805, he provided 402 pounds
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound.
·
On 8 February 1806, he provided 1013 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 1 September 1806, he provided 478 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 25 October 1806, he provided 231 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving five pence per pound. ·
On 29 September 1807, he provided 554 pounds of
swine’s flesh, receiving sixpence per pound. On
12 December 1806, William signed his name to a ‘humble memorial of the
settlers and landholders of Norfolk Island' to Captain John PIPER, Commandant.
This memorial sought a higher return for swine, wheat and maize due to
unfavourable wheat and maize crops. It
would seem that this memorial was successful as William received sixpence per
pound, an increase of one pence per pound, for his swine’s flesh in 1807. William seems to have taken on an additional or new position sometime in 1806. In the victualling book for 1806, William was listed as a constable as at 13 August. In 1807 he was also listed as a constable in government employ and a farmer. PropertyRyan (1982) states that at the beginning of 1791, William was given permission to cultivate a small tract of land at Queenborough (then called Charlotte Field) on Norfolk Island as encouragement for William and Esther to become self-supporting (an initiative of Major Ross). In February 1791, William and Esther were issued with a sow which they shared with a convict who had arrived on the first fleet, Thomas LIMPUS. He either lived with William and Esther or nearby. Later that month, the sow gave birth to eight piglets. As a result, by 1792, William, Esther and Thomas no longer had to rely on the meat ration. By July 1791, William and Esther had cleared 110 rods of their land. On
30 October 1796, William leased 34 acres of land by permission of Governor John
HUNTER for a term of 7 years (lot number 94, grant number 618, register number
2). This grant was near the centre
of Norfolk Island, nowadays the site of the aerodrome, thus the land must have
been flat. The boundaries of the
land were detailed in the grant as follows: The
front extends along the Queenborough Road for 6 chains, the eastern side line
bounds McCauldins, Davids’s, and 10 chains of the stream, which is the
northern boundary of No.61. From
thence the north-east line, which is Cross’s south-west line, runs north-west
19 ½ chains, from whence the western side line, runs S.40 W to the Queenborough
Road. Quit
rent for the grant was £1 14 shillings (ie, 34 shillings) per year payable from
30 September 1796 in half-yearly instalments for the full seven years of the
lease. Even
though William’s lease didn’t run out until 30 September 1803, the lease was
renewed by Governor KING on 30 May 1802 to James MORRISBY for 14 years.
On 10 February 1803, William leased 27 acres of land at Balls Bay (lot number 101, grant number 1057, registration number 3) by permission of Governor KING. The land was leased for 14 years, with rental payments of 10 shillings per year from the time of the lease. In
the settlers and landholders muster of 2 August 1807 at Norfolk Island, William
was listed as the proprietor of 37 acres of land with 4 acres in wheat, 10 acres
in maize, 20 acres in pasture, 3 acres fallow, 24 male and 10 female hogs, and
100 bushels of maize in hand. Thus, William must have leased another 10
acres of land at some stage. When
William’s family packed up to move to Van Diemen’s Land on 3 September 1808,
they had: ·
19 acres of cleared land; ·
18 acres of uncleared land; ·
one second class dwelling house which was
shingled and boarded with two floors, measuring 26 (or 34) feet long and 12 (or
13) feet wide; ·
one thatch, boarded and floored barn measuring
12 feet by 9 feet; and ·
five thatch and logs outhouses. This
property came to the value of £60. When William and his family arrived at Hobart Town from Norfolk Island, William was granted 60 acres of land in the Queenborough (Sandy Bay) area in recompense for the land he relinquished on Norfolk Island – two acres for every acre relinquished. Quit rent was 1 shilling. In the muster of 1809, William was listed as holding 60 acres, of which two acres were sown in wheat and one acre was sown in barley, and owning 16 sheep and one goat. This 60 acre land grant was situated on the water side of the public road, just south of the present Taroona Hotel. On 20 September 1813, William received this grant of 60 acres at Queenborough (Sandy Bay) from Governor MACQUARIE, for one shilling quit rent. It had taken a while for the paper work to come through! At the time the land was finally granted, he already owed eight shillings quit rents the land. His land grant (LSD 354/2 p.94) read: Unto William Sherburd his Heirs and Assigns to have and to hold for ever Sixty Acres of Land lying and Situate in the District of Queenboro' Van Diemen's Land, Bounded on the South West side by Hopwood's farm bearing North thirty three Degrees, West forty five chains. On the North West side by fourteen chains of a line bearing North fifty six degrees East. On the North East side by part of Colley's farm bearing South thirty three degrees East forty five chains to the Derwent River - And on the South East side by that River - Conditioned - 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 20th day of September 1813
This grant was registered in the Secretary's Office at Sydney on 31 July 1816. This property, which measured 59 acres in 1843, had a road which ran running through it from the middle of the north-eastern side, coming from Hobart Town, to the middle of the south-western side, going to Brown’s River. The stock that
William had brought with him from Norfolk Island was conserved for breeding.
Thus, he was able to supply the government with 1000 pounds of meat and
30 bushels of wheat on 16 May 1817.
It had been noted i In
the muster taken in Hobart Town from 7 September to 2 October 1818, William was
listed as being off the stores. By 1819, of
his 110 acres, William had 7 acres of wheat, ½ acre of peas and beans, 1 acre
of potatoes, and 101½ acres of pasture. He
also had 130 sheep and 30 bushels of grain in hand, and supported himself and
his family (wife and two children). However,
he owed two shillings in quit rents for his land at Queenborough.
He still owed this money in 1821 and 1822. In the land grant returns for 1820, William was listed as having 60 acres of land at Queenborough, and 50 acres of land which had not yet been measured. This 50 acres of land would be that which was granted to him by Governor BRISBANE in the district of Kingborough (Blackmans Bay) on 30 June 1823. The grant (LSD 354/6 p.78) reads: Know all men by these presents, that I, the said Sir Thomas Brisbane, in Pursuance of the Power and Authority so given and granted unto me as aforesaid, have Given and Granted, and by these Presents do Give and Grant, unto William Sherbert his Heirs and Assigns, all those Fifty Acres of Land, situate, lying, and being in the District of Kingboro' Van Diemens Land: Bounded on the South side by Folley's Farm and a continued West line of thirteen Chains; on the West side by a North line of Eleven Chains; on the North side by an East line to the Derwent River; and on the East side by that River. saving and reserving to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, such Timber as may be growing, or to grow hereafter, upon the said Land, which may be deemed fit for Naval Purposes; also such Parts of the said Land as are now or shall hereafter, be required, by the proper Officer of His Majesty's Government, for a Highway or Highways. To have and to hold the said land hereby granted to the said William Sherbert his Heirs and Assigns, for ever; free from all Taxes, Quit-Rents, Services, and Acknowledgements whatsoever, for the period of five years from the date of these Presents; but from and after the expiration of the said Term or Time, yielding and paying therefore to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, the Quit-Rent or Sum of One Shilling of lawful Sterling Money, yearly, and every Year, for ever. Provided always, and it is hereby expressly stipulated, that so much of the aforesaid Fifty Acres of Land hereby granted, as exceeds the Quantity I am enabled to Grant the said William Sherbert under the before-recited Instructions, is to be considered as granted subject to the Approbation of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors: And Provided always, and it is hereby expressly stipulated, that the said William Sherbert and his Heirs, shall in no Wise either directly or indirectly sell, aliene, assign, transfer, or set over the said Land hereby granted, or any Part of Parcel thereof, within the said Term of Five Years: And provided always, that the said William Sherbert and his Heirs, shall clear and cultivate, or cause to be cleared and cultivated, within the said Term of Five Years, the Quantity of Fifteen Acres of the said Land hereby granted: Otherwise the Whole of the said Land hereby granted shall become forfeit and escheat to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and these Presents shall be held and deemed null and void. Evidence given before the commission of inquiry held by J T BIGGE on 15
May 1820, indicated that William sold 1,335 pounds of meat to the value of £38
18s 9d to William MAUM. Prior to his
death, William sold 6 acres of the property at Queenborough to his daughter, Mrs
Ann HOPWOOD, thus reducing this property to 54 acres. Upon
William’s death his son, John, being heir-at-law of the original grantee,
inherited all of his father’s property, including the farm at Sandy Bay and
properties at Davey Street, Hobart Town and Blackmans Bay. On 30 June 1823, six months after William died, title was finally given for the additional grant of 50 acres in Kingborough, from Governor Macquarie. A notice in the Hobart Town Gazette of 25 April 1829 regarding quit rents owed on land grants listed William SHERBURD as having a grant of 60 acres of land at Queenborough, granted by Governor MACQUARIE on 20 September 1830, owing £1 quit rent annually with the first year's payment due on 20 September 1819. The amount owed as at 25 April 1829 was 10 shillings. It would seem that no quit rents had been paid since William died in 1822. ProvisionIn
1806, William was listed as a settler indebted to the Crown on account of sundry
articles of merchandise supplied to him from the public stores at Norfolk Island
between 13 August and 31 December 1806. The
document gives an account of articles delivered to the public stores by William
in full payment of the outstanding debts. William
was supplied with articles from the public stores to the value of £6, 7
shillings, 4 ½ pence. He had
delivered to the stores, in full payment of his debt: ·
24 ½ bushels of wheat @ 8 shillings per
bushel; ·
3 ½ bushels of barley @ 6 shillings per
bushel; and ·
306 pounds of pork @ five pence per pound. There
was no account for debts for the settler William SHERBURD for 1 January 1807 to
10 April 1807. At
various times whilst on Norfolk Island, William and his family were victualled
from the stores, at other times they were off the stores. ·
On 1 January 1802, William was listed in the
victualling book as a settler (sentence expired), victualled for 365 days. ·
On 31 December 1804, William was listed in the
victualling book as a settler from convicts, victualled for 184 days. ·
On 1 January 1805, William was listed in the
victualling book as a settler from convicts, victualled for 181 days. ·
On 1 July 1805, William was listed in the
victualling book as a settler from convicts, victualled for 184 days. ·
On 1 January 1806, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler from convicts, victualled for 181 days. ·
On 13 August 1806, William was listed as a
constable, victualled from the stores. ·
On 31 December 1806, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler from convicts, victualled for 43 (1 Jul – 12
Aug) and 141 (13 Aug – 31 Dec) days. ·
On 2 August 1807, William, his wife and two
children were listed in the settlers and landholders muster as being victualled;
three children were listed as being off the stores. ·
On 30 June 1807, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler (sentence expired), victualled for 181 days. ·
On 31 December 1807, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler, victualled for 184 days. ·
On 30 June 1808, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler, victualled for 182 days. ·
On 8 September 1808, William was listed in
victualling book as a settler, victualled for 70 days. Thus,
it is likely that William and his family were victualled from the stores for
most of the time they were resident on Norfolk Island. Whether or not William and his family took advantage of this offer is unknown. TransportationOn
10 November 1789 William was discharged from Newgate Gaol for embarkation on the
Scarborough transport.
The Scarborough sailed as part of the second fleet, known
colloquially as the death fleet. The day after their marriage, one month after their arrival at Port Jackson, William and Esther SHERBURD were transferred to Norfolk Island as husband and wife prisoners to help settle the island colony. They were transported per the Surprise along with 194 mostly female convicts, arriving at Norfolk Island on 7 August 1790. Trials30 May 1781 26 April 1876 25 October 1786 Prior
to his transportation offence, William SHERBURD and Thomas HOLLIDAY were
apprehended for highway robbery. They
were tried in the Justice Hall at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, 30 May 1781.
The Old Bailey Sessions Papers of May 1781, which these days are held in
the London Metropolitan Archives, contain information about this trial.
At
the time of William’s arrest, on 7 May 1781, a statement was taken from John
PHILLIPS of New Cranes, St George Parish, Middlesex. His statement was made under oath before two Justices of the
Peace, namely John SHERWOOD and William BLACKMORE. In it John PHILLIPS stated that at about 9 pm on 6 May 1781
he was stopped in his carriage by two highwaymen, nearly opposite the Salmon
and Ball in Bethnal Green, Middlesex. They
both presented a pistol to him and demanded his purse, containing a guinea and
some silver, which he gave them. They
then demanded his gold watch, which he also gave them.
John PHILLIPS believed that Thomas HOLLIDAY and William SHERBURD (present
at the taking of the statement) were the two highwaymen.
The
charge against William SHERBURD and Thomas HOLLIDAY, made on 6 May 1781, can be
found in the Old Bailey Sessions Rolls for the date of the trial, 30 May 1781.
Both
Thomas HOLLIDAY and William SHERBURD pleaded not guilty and were listed as
labourers of the parish of St Mathew, Bethnal Green, Middlesex.
The charge states that William and Thomas, on 6 May 1781, “with force
and arms” on the King’s highway did make an assault on John PHILLIPS and
that John PHILLIPS, “in corporal fear and danger of his life” did hand over,
against his will, a silk purse worth sixpence containing a guinea and two
shillings, a gold watch worth £10
with a gold chain worth £3, two seals set in gold worth £3.
The Old Bailey Sessions Rolls of 30 May 1781
also hold a record of William and Thomas’ committal to gaol whilst awaiting
trial. It is a “perfect
calendar” of all the prisoners committed to his Majesty’s Gaol of Newgate
from 28 April 1781 to 2 June 1781. Thomas
HOLLIDAY and William SHERBURD were committed to Newgate Prison on 9 May 1781 by
John SHERWOOD and William BLACKMORE on the oath of John PHILLIPS on suspicion of
highway robbery. From the Sessions Papers for May 1781 also
hold the trial record of 30 May 1781 for William SHERBURD and Thomas HOLLIDAY.
The prisoners were indicted for feloniously making an assault on 6 May
1781 on John PHILLIPS on the King’s highway, putting
him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and stealing from his person those
items listed above, the property of John PHILLIPS.
They were tried before Mr Baron PERRYN before the second Middlesex jury. The
witnesses were examined apart, at the request of the prisoners.
The first witness was Mr John PHILLIPS.
He testified that on Sunday night at about 9 o’clock on the 6th
of May, he was coming from Clapton, near Hackney, to
London in a coach. It was moonlight.
As he came by Bethnal Green, two men rode up to the coach.
The man on the right stopped the coachman, whilst the man on the left
rode up to the side of the coach that he sat on.
This man made to open the door, but he forestalled him by letting down
the window. The highwayman
presented a pistol and asked for his
purse. He gave it to him. There were a guinea and three or four shillings in it.
The highwayman then asked for
his watch. He did not give
it to him immediately. The
highwayman bid him “make haste, I
must have it”. He then
gave it him. It was a gold watch in
a single case, with a gold chain, two seals set in gold, and a gold key. The highwaymen rode off immediately. John PHILLIPS
was asked “How long were they about this?”
He replied, “About two or three minutes, not longer.”
He further stated that he couldn’t see the man on the right and that he
could only see a little of the man on the left because his face was hidden.
He had a great coat over his chin, a hat slapped over his face and a
handkerchief tied round his neck. He
couldn’t recognise either of the robbers.
After handing over his valuables, PHILLIPS
looked out of the coach and saw the two men ride down
the lane. Then his servant brought
an unknown man to him (George HAYLAND) who said he knew the two men he saw ride
down the lane. He then told George
that he had just been robbed and asked him if he would go with him to Justice
SHERWOOD’s office. They went
together in the coach. After
telling the story of the highway robbery, Justice
SHERWOOD sent two men with
George HAYLAND to watch for William and Thomas.
PHILLIPS heard
in the morning that they had both been arrested. PHILLIPS was
asked to describe the person on his side (William SHERBURD), to describe his
stature or his clothes. PHILLIPS
stated that he had a very large, dark coloured great
coat on which, he thought, was buttoned over his face.
He described him as a rather square man of large features.
He particularly noticed that he had a very large nose.
He also thought that he was marked a bit with small pox scars. When asked if he had made any observations
of the other highwayman, PHILLIPS
replied that he hadn’t because he couldn’t see his
face. He was alone in his coach and
his servant was behind. PHILLIPS
stated that nothing was found on the men when
arrested. John PHILLIPS
was then cross-examined.
He was asked if both the coachman and footman were sober.
PHILLIPS replied
that the footman is a sober man, but he couldn’t vouch for the coachman.
When asked if the coachman was sober that night, PHILLIPS
said, “I cannot say”.
He further stated that the coachman is so often in liquor that he can
hardly distinguish when he is and when he is not in liquor. PHILLIPS was
then asked if he could see how the other man (Thomas HOLLIDAY) was dressed.
He replied that he was dressed in a light great coat and that he only saw
his back. He then stated that when
the two highwaymen were arrested and brought to Justice SHERWOOD’s, a number
of people came to prove that one of the men (William) was in a public house at
that time. PHILLIPS was
next asked about the horses. He
replied that he didn’t observe anything about the horses and went on to say
that he had had his coachman for six months and that he is a very good coachman,
being able to drive as well drunk as sober.
When quizzed about why he employed the coachman, PHILLIPS
replied that he knew his character very well but took
him on as he was recommended as a very good coachman. The next witness was Francis WHITFIELD, John
PHILLIPS’
coachman. Francis WHITFIELD swore that on Sunday, the 6th of May he was
driving his master home from Clapton to Bethnal Green when two men riding on the
road stopped the carriage, one of them holding a pistol to the horses’ heads,
making him stop. He was then told
to look straight ahead over the horses’ heads, not to look back. WHITFIELD was asked if he noticed anything
about the person or the dress of the man who held the pistol to the horses’
heads. He replied that the man was
of moderate size with a pretty fair complexion.
He said it was a very light night, suggesting that he could see clearly.
WHITFIELD went on to
say that the man had a great coat on and a handkerchief around his neck, but
didn’t notice any more because of all the confusion. After giving directions to WHITFIELD, the
man went behind the carriage to the footman and made him hold his head down.
The other highwayman opened the door of the carriage and threatened WHITFIELD’s
master and told him to be quick about handing over the valuables.
After gaining possession of the valuables, WHITFIELD said the men turned around and headed off in the
direction of Old Ford, behind the carriage. WHITFIELD was asked how long the highwaymen
were about their business. He
replied, “Not above a minute.” He was then further questioned about whether
or not he could swear to either of the persons. WHITFIELD identified
HOLLIDAY as the man who threatened his life.
This indicates that William was the man who collected the valuables from
PHILLIPS. WHITFIELD was
then pressed, being asked, “You say the business was only one minute in
performing; will you take upon yourself to swear to the person of a man you saw
only for the space of a minute, and never saw before; and under the terror of
the robbery?” WHITFIELD replied that he was telling the truth. WHITFIELD was then asked if he was sober or
drunk at the time of the robbery. He
replied that he was “perfectly sober”.
When asked if he had been at a public house at Clapton that afternoon, he
replied, “There is no one can say they saw me there.” and when the question
was repeated he emphatically denied that he had been at a public house.
However, when asked if he had had strong liquor of any kind, he replied
that he had not, but that he had had some small beer.
Did he get this from a public house? WHITFIELD was then again pressed about being
able to identify HOLLIDAY, “Did you make any accurate observations upon the
man, so as to be able to swear to him so positively?” WHITFIELD replied,
“I am certain he was the man.” When
asked if he was in a flurry at the time, WHITFIELD replied
that he wasn’t. WHITFIELD was then cross-examined.
He was asked, “How come you to be so sober on that day, more than any
other day in the year?” and replied “I do not know that I was remarkably
sober.” This seems to
contradict what he said earlier about being “perfectly sober”!
WHITFIELD was then
asked if he was apt to be remarkably drunk.
He replied, “If I had been a drunken servant, I should not have staid
so long in my place as I have.” When
it was suggested to him that his master gave a different account of him, saying
he was a drunken servant, WHITFIELD replied,
“My master don’t know when I’m drunk or sober.” James PENRY, John PHILLIPS’ footman, was
the next person called to the witness box.
PENRY swore that he
was behind his master’s coach, coming from Clapton, when two men stopped the
coach. One of the men went up to
his master, but PENRY
couldn’t hear what was said. The
other man went up to PENRY
and bid him “turn your face the other way, or I will blow your brains out.”
The man also went to the coachman and said the same thing to him.
PENRY said his master
did not hand over the valuables straight way so the man that had pointed the
pistol at him went and opened the other door and swore and cursed asking
PHILLIPS why he didn’t hurry up. The
two highwaymen then rode off and as they went one of them pointed a pistol at PENRY
and swore, “If you ride after me, I’ll blow your
brains out.” After the men rode off, PENRY went back the way they had come about 20 yards where he met a man and a woman. He asked them if they had seen two men ride by. The man said he had and that he knew them both. So PENRY brought the man to PHILLIPS who was told that one of the highwaymen was Thomas HOLLIDAY and the other was William SHERBURD. PENRY was asked if he knew the name of the
man who had said the highwaymen were HOLLIDAY and SHERBURD.
PENRY replied he did,
and that the man was George HAYLAND. He
continued on, saying that HAYLAND got into the carriage with his master and when
the coach stopped in Whitechapel, he got out and went to SHERBURD’s father,
for what purpose, he didn’t know. When asked if he could identify either of
the persons that robbed his master, PENRY replied that he could and said Thomas
HOLLIDAY was the person that pointed the pistol at him and that he had been
wearing a great coat. PENRY was asked if the great coat came over his chin.
He replied that it did not. He
was then asked if HOLLIDAY’s hat was slapped.
He replied that it was slapped a little. When asked, “Do you take upon you to swear that is the
man?”, PENRY replied, “I
am certain; I saw his face enough to know him.” PENRY was then asked if he observed the
other highwayman. He said SHERBURD
had on a brown coat, but he couldn’t see his face.
He identified SHERBURD as the man who took the money. PENRY was then asked further about the man
who pointed the pistol at him. He
stated that the man wore a light coloured great coat but he couldn’t say
whether or not the man had a
handkerchief about his neck. George HAYLAND was the next witness to testify. When he took the stand, PENRY was asked if this new witness was George HAYLAND. PENRY testified that it was HAYLAND. HAYLAND testified that on the 6th
of May he was in the company of a young woman, walking across Bethnal Green.
He saw the two prisoners on horseback.
When they passed him, he looked them full in the face and said, “There
you go, Billy”. When the
gentleman’s servant heard him say that, the servant came up to him and asked
him if he had seen two men pass by on horseback.
He replied that he had and innocently said that he knew them.
When the gentleman, PHILLIPS, heard him say that to his servant he asked
him if that was indeed so. HAYLAND replied that he knew the two men on horseback very
well as they were his neighbours. He
told
PHILLIPS their names. PHILLIPS
asked him to go with him in his carriage to give evidence to the police.
HAYLAND went with
him, but was loath to do so. HAYLAND stated that he was a worker in the
aqua fortis and vitriol business. He
had known SHERBURD since he was a child and testified that he had never known
any harm of him. HAYLAND was asked if the prosecutor took him
in his carriage and then stopped in Whitechapel. HAYLAND replied,
yes, that they went to SHERBURD’s father’s house.
HAYLAND asked
SHERBURD’s father if William was at home.
William’s father asked him what he wanted with him.
HAYLAND replied that
William had done a thing he shouldn’t have done at Bethnal Green, that William
and Thomas HOLLIDAY had robbed a gentleman. HAYLAND then went with PHILLIPS to Justice
SHERWOOD’s and informed him of the names of the two persons who had robbed
PHILLIPS. However, he stated that
he had not seen them stop PHILLIPS’ carriage nor rob him.
Justice SHERWOOD’s clerk then sent two or three of his men to watch for
SHERBURD and HOLLIDAY. HAYLAND went
with them to Whitechapel where he lives, but did not go with the men to take
SHERBURD and HOLLIDAY. When they
were taken, HOLLIDAY sent for HAYLAND saying
he wanted to speak to him, but when HAYLAND went
to him, HOLLIDAY knocked him down. HAYLAND was asked how far the accused were
from the coachman when he met them on Bethnal Green. He replied he was about twelve yards from the coach and that
there were no other people riding upon the road at that time. The next witness to give evidence was Samuel
YARDLEY who belonged to Justice WILMOT’s office. He swore that Mr SHERWOOD’s people called him out of bed on
Sunday night, the 6th of May and told him they had information of a
robber on Bethnal Green. They asked
him
if he knew SHERBURD and HOLLIDAY. He
replied he had known them for some years and so went with them and waited near
HOLLIDAY’s house until 3:30 am before going to refresh themselves.
During that time, they saw nobody go in or out.
YARDLEY testified he was with John FARREL and John MASON. YARDLEY was asked if HOLLIDAY was a house
keeper. He replied that he believed
HOLLIDAY was a house keeper, the house being in Willow Walk near Bethnal Green.
They returned again about 6 am and planted themselves at each
end of the walk
waiting for HOLLIDAY to come home. YARDLEY
was reading a newspaper in a neighbouring public house when he saw him come
home, on horseback, about 7:45 am. As soon as HOLLIDAY dismounted, YARDLEY
apprehended him in his yard, then left him
in the custody of FARRELL whilst he
searched the house. YARDLEY found nothing except some gun powder wrapped in a
piece of paper. HOLLIDAY asked YARDLEY
to go with him to SHERBURD’s farther.
As they went along, a young man came by and HOLLIDAY struck at him,
hitting him in the face. The young
man asked him what it was for and HOLLIDAY replied, “For going to SHERBURD’s
father that night.” YARDLEY and HOLLIDAY continued on to
SHERBURD’s father who said he knew where William was and sent his sister to
fetch him. YARDLEY told William’s father that William must also go
before the Justice. YARDLEY,
with the assistance of FARRELL, took both SHERBURD and HOLLIDAY to the Justice
for committal. YARDLEY was asked if SHERBURD’s witnesses appeared before
the justice to prove where he was that night.
YARDLEY said that
three people bore witness. John FARRELL confirmed YARDLEY’s evidence
as to the taking of the prisoners; and John MASON confirmed the evidence of both
John FARRELL and Samuel YARDLEY. HOLLIDAY and SHERBURD both left their
defence to their counsel. Ann COVINGTON was called as a witness for
Thomas HOLLIDAY. She swore that she
was a servant to Mr SWAINE in Little Britain and that on Sunday, 6 May she was
at HOLLIDAY’s house in Prince’s Row, Whitechapel.
She went there at about 6 o’clock in the evening and stayed until about
9:30 pm. COVINGTON swore that
HOLLIDAY was at home during all that time and that he talked of having his
supper, when she left, and of going to bed.
The supper things were set; they (Thomas and his wife?) wanted her to
stay to supper. Elizabeth GRETHAM was also called as a
witness for Thomas HOLLIDAY. She
swore that she was a nurse and lived in Thomas HOLLIDAY’s house.
On Sunday 6 May she came home between 8 and 9 o’clock, going up to bed
at about 9 o’clock. GRETHAM swore
that HOLLIDAY was at home when she came home and that she heard his voice in the
house after she went to bed. At about 9:30 pm HOLLIDAY sent his wife up to ask if GRETHAM
would have anything to eat. She
replied that she was very ill and only wanted to rest. John GRETHAM (Elizabeth’s husband?) was
also called as a witness for Thomas HOLLIDAY.
He testified that he was Mr HOLLIDAY’s servant and that he was at home
the evening of Sunday 6 May from 9 o’clock until just before 10 o’clock and
that Thomas HOLLIDAY was at home all of that time. Another two witnesses were called that
proved that the horse HOLLIDAY was riding when he was apprehended was delivered
to him that morning. Six other
witnesses gave him a good character, one of whom added that the coachman told
him that if he could have some recompense from HOLLIDAY he would not hurt him,
but that he would sham sick or shuffle in court. George VOWELL was called as a witness for
William SHERBURD. He swore that he
had known SHERBURD since Christmas and that he saw him at the Blue Anchor,
Whitechapel the evening of Sunday 6 May. He
went out and returned at about 8 o’clock and SHERBURD was there.
He stayed until about 10 o’clock and said SHERBURD was there all that
time except for about ten minutes when SHERBURD told him he was at the door.
There were a group of four or five of them at the pub. Daniel BUTCHER also gave evidence for
William SHERBURD. He swore that he
keeps the Blue Anchor in Whitechapel and that on Sunday 6 May SHERBURD
came in at about 8 o’clock and stayed until about 10 o’clock.
He attended the magistrate’s the following day. William SIMMONDS, Elizabeth AINSWORTH,
William WRIGHT, Thomas TIPPING and Sarah WEBBER, the servant maid at the Blue
Anchor, all confirmed the evidence of VOWELL and BUTCHER.
William called eight other witnesses who all gave him a good character
reference. Thomas HOLLIDAY was found guilty and
sentenced to death. HOLLIDAY was
humbly recommended by the jury to his Majesty’s mercy, but was later executed,
hung by the neck until dead. William
SHERBURD was found not guilty. William was “let off” on this occasion because it couldn’t be proved beyond a doubt that the square man of large features and a very large nose who demanded the belongings of Mr PHILLIPS was indeed William SHERBURD. Furthermore, William was able to supply several witnesses at his trial that claimed he was in the pub at the time of the crime!
On 26 April 1786, Jonathan SHERBURD and William SHERBURD were arrested when stolen tools the property of John THOMAS were found in their house in a court off Sun Tavern Fields (in the block now bounded by Cable, Martha and Sutton Streets, London E1, just east of Shadwell underground station). It is not known whether the Jonathon SHERBURD referred to here is William’s father or cousin (it could not have been his brother as they were both too young). William and Jonathan were indicted for feloniously stealing, taking and carrying away with force and arms, on 16 March 1786, two ripping chisels (value 6d) and one carpenter's axe (value 2s) from John THOMAS. Both were listed as labourers of the parish of St Paul, Shadwell, London. They were found NOT guilty. Witnesses against Jonathan and William made the following statements on 27 March 1786 before John STAPLES and William BLACKMORE. John THOMAS of No.2 Peale Abbey in the parish of St Paul, Shadwell, stated that two of the chisels and the axe produced for identification were taken out of an empty house situated in Griffin Street, Shadwell on Thursday night the 16th of March. He was employed to make repairs at this house for Mr Thomas DYLES of the parish of St Paul, Shadwell. He identified the chisels and axe as his property. William HAYCOCK, a lodger at Mrs CROSS's, the George in High Street in the parish of St Paul, Shadwell stated that he saw the two chisels and the axe in the house at Griffin Street on Thursday 16 March at the time they left work in the evening. He verily believed the chisels and axe to be the property of John THOMAS. John FLETCHER of New Gravel Lane in the parish of St Paul, Shadwell, stated that on Monday morning (20 March) he received information that Jonathan and William SHEBURD had carried two bags supposedly containing copper into the house of Mrs OWLES in Sun Tavern Fields and that they were at home at a house in ???, Sun Tavern Fields. He went with William ELBEY to the house and there found Jonathan and William SHERBURD. Searching the house they found the two chisels and axe, also a large ??? cock and small cock, bunch of keys, mortice, chisel and ??? hangers in the lower room of the house where Jonathan and William were sitting at dinner. William ELBEY of Shadwell Market in the parish of St Paul, Shadwell, stated that on Wednesday evening last (22 March) John THOMAS informed he had lost an axe and recollecting that when he was in the house of William SHERBURD that he thought he saw the handle of an axe. He went with John THOMAS to the house and found the axe in the wash house. Before John THOMAS saw the axe he had described it as having a piece of the helve of the axe broken off at the handle and on seeing the axe swore it was his property.
William’s
next arrest was his “undoing”. William
was convicted with Thomas RANSOM of burglary of Thomas KIDD’s house at No.82
Brook Street, Ratcliffe, in the East End (now the east section of Cable Street,
London E1) on 5 June 1786. They
were accused of stealing bedding, linen, cloth, a large quantity of clothing,
some shoes and slippers, 14 lbs weight of soap and a looking glass.
A few days after the burglary, Thomas KIDD’s wife, Mary, was at the Bow
Street Fair when she spotted Lucy SHERBURD wearing a gown which she recognised
as having been amongst the stolen clothes.
Without confronting Lucy, she made enquiries and discovered where she
lived. She took this information to
the police who obtained a search warrant for the SHERBURD’s rented room on the
lower floor of a house in Perrywinkle Street (which ran between Brook Street and
Ratcliffe Square). The constables
broke down the door of the room and entered.
Lucy and William were not at home but after enquiries, the constables
were directed to the RANSOM’s room in Spice Island (a public house in the
parish of St George in the East, London, Middlesex; in August 1786). The
police constables arrested Elizabeth RANSOM and found some of the stolen clothes
in a washing tub on these premises. Others
of the stolen clothes had already been altered by a tailor or pawned in
Whitechapel.
Several days later, Lucy SHERBURD was arrested as “a woman of loose
character”. Does this mean that
she was working as a prostitute? If
so, did Lucy and William live apart? After
a tip-off, Thomas RANSOM and William SHERBURD were arrested as they were leaving
a house in Haggerston Gardens to which RANSOM claimed he had moved.
Why had Thomas suddenly moved? To
escape the police? At
the trial, Lucy SHERBURD called character witnesses separately and Thomas and
his wife called three character witnesses who spoke well of them.
William, however, did not call any character witnesses – a marked
difference to his earlier trial! William
was described as a young man and a shoemaker by trade who had previously lodged
with his father in Whitechapel. The
Old Bailey Session Papers for the trial (no. 781), held at the Middlesex Assizes
of October 1786, provide further detail to the above summary.
William was tried on Wednesday, 25 October 1786 at the Justice Hall in
the Old Bailey, the first Middlesex Jury, before Mr Baron EYRE. In
addition, more information on the trial is found in the Old Bailey Session
Papers for October 1786. Statements
dated 16 October 1786 were taken and sworn before John STAPLES by Thomas COLE,
Thomas DOBSON and William SPRAGGS against Thomas RANSOM of Middlesex and William
SHERBURD of Middlesex. There were
also statements form Mary KIDD and John FLETCHER against William and Lucy
SHERBURD and Thomas and Elizabeth RANSOM. The
information from all these sets of papers is provided below.
The
Old Bailey session papers state that William SHERBURD, Lucy SHERBURD, Thomas
RANSOM and Elizabeth RANSOM were indicted for burglariously and feloniously
breaking and entering the dwelling house of Thomas KIDD, at about midnight on
the 5th of June, and burglariously stealing the following articles
belonging to Thomas KIDD:
They were
also charged with a second count of breaking into Thomas KIDD’s house, which
was empty, on 5 June 1786 at about 10 am and stealing the above goods.
Thus, they were charged with the same break and enter and theft for two
different times on the same day. It
is most likely that they had to go back to fetch out the remainder of the stolen
items as there were so many of them. The
total worth of the theft was 223 shillings or £11 3s. At the
trial, the witnesses were examined separately.
The first witness called was Mary KIDD, the wife of Thomas KIDD.
Mary lived, with her husband, at 82 Brook Street, Ratcliff, St Dunstans,
Stepney, Middlesex. Her husband was a mariner.
She swore that she left her house on Sunday evening, the 4th
of June at about 7 o’clock. The
house was empty and she secured all the doors and windows herself.
She then went on board ship with her husband.
She returned home the following Tuesday at about midday to get some clean
things. When she tried to put her
key into the lock of the outside door (the garden gate), she couldn’t get the
key in. When she lifted up the
latch the door came open. There was
a hasp on the door which she had bolted on the inside when she went out, but the
bolt was busted off and she found it laying in the middle of the kitchen floor.
There was no other fastening on the door.
The first
thing Mary missed was a looking glass which was in a mahogany frame.
She found her house had been rifled of a great many things.
All the chairs were placed round the fireplace and the kettle was on the
fire. There was the appearance of
people having been there. This
alarmed her so much that she ran to her mother’s place which was nearby and
told her that their house had been broken into and stripped. Mary’s
sister, Hannah WELCH, then went with her to examine the house further.
Mary then found a flounced petticoat on the stairs which belonged to a
gown of hers which she was later found to be in the possession of Mr DOBSON, the
pawnbroker. She also found that the
drawers about the room were empty. She
cited a list of things stolen (see above listed). Mary
stated that she did not know anything against the prisoners, but had once seen
SHERBURD calling a coach to carry some prisoners to gaol.
When asked if anyone had a key to the house besides herself, she replied
no. The next
witness called to the stand was Hannah WELCH, Mary’s sister.
She testified that Thomas and Mary KIDD were on shore on Sunday afternoon
but went on board ship again about seven o’clock in the evening.
Hannah lived at Glasshouse Fields, not in the house.
On Tuesday morning Mary KIDD came on shore for some clean things and
after finding her house broken into came to Hannah’s house and told Hannah her
house had been burgled. Hannah
went with Mary to her house and they first thing they saw was a tinder box on
the dresser and the candle almost burnt out.
Also, all the chairs were arranged around the fireplace.
They then turned and noticed the looking glass missing.
As they went up the stairs Mary picked up a handkerchief and petticoat. Hannah went up to the bedroom where there were drawers laying
about, one of them with the bottom knocked out. They then turned around to notice the bed and bed clothes
were gone. The house had been
rifled. On the
Saturday afternoon afterwards Hannah went with Mary and Thomas KIDD to the Bow
Fair. Whilst there Mary saw Lucy
SHERBURD wearing a gown and petticoat which she claimed was her own.
They went round the fair but did not speak to Lucy SHERBURD.
The next day Mary KIDD and Hannah went to Thomas RANSOM’s house in
Spice Island where they found one of Thomas KIDD’s shirts all torn up in a tub
of water, along with a part of an apron. The next
morning the prisoners were brought before the Justice.
Hannah saw a few keys in Mr FLETCHER’s hands, but said she didn’t
know anything about them. When asked if the keys were tried, she replied no.
Mr PEATT then asked Hannah if Mary KIDD went near Lucy SHERBURD at the
fair. Hannah replied no, they were
at some distance from her. The court then asked how near they were.
Hannah replied they were not very close.
The court further asked if they were within one, two or ten yards of Lucy
SHERBURD. Hannah replied, yes, they passed close to them and looked at
them a good bit. This last
statement seems a little contradictory to the first two statements on this
matter! Thomas
DOBSON was the next witness. DOBSON
was a pawnbroker in
Butcher (or Bakers) Row, Whitechapel. He swore that on the 11th of June, John ORANGE
came to his house with Mary KIDD and her husband.
DOBSON was
not at home. They asked for several
things which he produced in court. He had two cotton gowns, a Marseilles petticoat, one man’s
coat, one dozen and a half clouts and one pair of stockings. When
asked how he came by these things, DOBSON replied that on 6 June Elizabeth
RANSOM brought one cotton gown which she pawned with him for two shillings and
nine pence. Then on 8 June she
brought the dozen and a half clouts which were pawned for two shillings
sixpence. On 9 June she brought one
pair of silk and worsted stockings which she pawned for one shilling and
sixpence. On 10 June she brought
the man’s coat which was pawned for eight shillings and the Marseilles
petticoat which was pawned for six shillings and one penny.
Also on 10 June, Lucy SHERBURD’s sister brought him a cotton gown and
asked twelve shillings for it. However,
DOBSON said
that he could not afford to lend more than eight shillings on it. She returned again in twenty minutes to take eight shillings
asked for the paperwork to be made out in the name of Elizabeth SMITH.
Yet, DOBSON had
noted that when her parents used to send her to his shop she would give the name
of BENNETT. Mary KIDD again took the stand to answer
questions about the garments presented in court. She stated that the flounced coat belonging to one of the
gowns presented was left behind during the robbery.
She identified both of the gowns as hers, saying that Lucy SHERBURD had
the cotton gown on at Bow Fair. She
identified the coat as her husband’s and the clouts as her own work, made out
of old things. She swore that she
could identify the piece of canvas they were pinned up in. In her statement to the magistrate she had
said that all the articles produced by Thomas DOBSON,
the pawnbroker, were the property of her husband and had been taken from her
house between 7 o’clock Whitsunday night and midday the following Tuesday. Mary KIDD said she knew nothing of the
prisoners. She stated that the gown
she saw Lucy SHERBURD wearing at Bow Fair was a flounced gown with a gore and
that it had been altered. At Spice
Island she enquired after them and found where they lived. She remembered seeing the prisoner (SHERBURD) calling a
coach. She went to search their
house at young BROOKS in Spice Island. Mr
FLETCHER had the keys. They would
not let her have them to try them. There she found some strios of shirts.
Young BROOKS informed them where the prisoner Ransom lodged and that
SHERBURD lodged in his house. In
BROOKS’ house she found a piece of her gown which had been cut off which she
identified in court. They found the
pieces in the lower fore room and identified a piece which would match.
Mary also identified one of the sleeves of a shirt, which was stained by
sugars, two more sleeves, and the hind and fore part of a shirt with the collar
and waistbands tore away. Mary KIDD further stated that the prisoners
admitted to bail before the Magistrate. When
asked if the pattern on the gown was very common, Mary replied that it was and
that she had never seen Lucy SHERBURD before, except walking up and down, but
was positive to the women when she saw them.
When asked if she knew the piece of canvas from anything but its general
appearance Mary replied no, but that she was sure it was hers. The court then asked Mary where she left her
tinder box when she went out. She
said she had left it in the middle of the dresser, with the flint and steel
laying on the dresser and the matches on the ground.
The candle was very nearly burnt out.
Mary was then asked if there was the appearance of its being used in her
absence. She replied yes. The next witness called to give evidence was
John ORANGE. He swore that on
Sunday the 11th of June he went with Thomas KIDD, Thomas COLE and
John FLETCHER to the apartment of SHERBURD at BROOKS’ house in Ratcliffe
parish. They knocked on the door
and when there was no reply then broke it open.
They found nobody at home. In
the afternoon he went with Thomas COLE and BROOKS to RANSOM’s apartment and
found nobody at home there either. At RANSOM’s, ORANGE and company got into
the apartment through a back window. When
they searched the apartment they found a chisel, a centre-bit and a file in the
back room. The apartment was a
little hut with two low rooms. ORANGE,
COLE and BROOKS left there and went to the Green Man, a public house
opposite. There they were informed
where the garments presented in court were in pawn. Accordingly they went to DOBSON’s in Bakers Row, but DOBSON
was out. ORANGE went again on the Monday morning with Thomas KIDD. The next witness was William SPRAGG, a tailor of Brook Street, Ratcliffe Cross. He swore that on the morning of 6 June (Whitsunday Tuesday last) William SHERBURD brought him a pair of nankeen breeches to take in as they were too wide for him. SHERBURD took them away altered. Then, straight aftewrards, Thomas RANSOM came in and told him he had a job for him. RANSOM took a handkerchief, untied it and produced a coat which was one of the garments presented in court. RANSOM told SPRAGG stated in his statement to the
Magistrate that Mary KIDD came to his house on the Sunday after Bow Fair and
claimed the collar of the coat the pieces of the nankeen which he had cut out of
the breeches, and swore that they were hers. Mary KIDD then identified the half
handkerchief which was taken from Elizabeth RANSOM’s neck – she identified
it by the border. When asked if she
knew it only by the border, she replied no, but it was cut in half and put
around Elizabeth’s neck without being hemmed.
As soon as she said to Elizabeth that this was her new handkerchief,
Elizabeth gave it to her, gave her a shove and said, “Take it, I had it with
the rest of the things.” Then
Mary looked at her and noticed she had on one of her shifts and a pair of cotton
stockings. Mary said she should
have them, but John FLETCHER asked her if she would have Elizabeth RANSOM strip
there and then. Mary stated that
she knew the shift as it had a very little bosom and when she was pregnant she
had cut it bigger and afterwards sewn it up with coarse groat thread.
Mary also stated she had the fellow to the stockings on at the time.
When questioned about there being a thousand dozen stockings made that
are all fellows, were these ones worked in any way, Mary replied that she did
not examine them. Thomas COLE was the next witness called to give evidence. Thomas In the afternoon of the same day they COLE
heard where RANSOM lived at Spice Island in St George parish, Middlesex.
He went there with John ORANGE. They
got in by opening the window and looked through the house, finding a parcel of
things laying about. COLE found some things in a washing tub.
He sent for Thomas and Mary KIDD. Mary
KIDD looked out what she thought she knew, saying that there were some things
there which she could swear to, including several pieces of a shirt and a piece
of an apron which she knew to be her husband’s property.
She wrung them out of the dirty water and took them away to dry them,
producing them the next morning at the office.
COLE couldn’t say
for sure, but believed they were the same garments they had found at RANSOM’s. In the evening they took Elizabeth RANSOM
into custody, taking her to the watch-house.
Mary KIDD then came and swore to those things that she took from the
washing tub. A considerable time
later they had information about SHERBURD and RANSOM. They arrested them at Haggerston Gardens, in SHERBURD’s
house, agreeing with ORANGE that they were little huts. In his statement to the Justice Cole stated
that he saw John Orange find the centre-bit, file and chisel produced in Thomas
Ransom’s house. The next witness at the trial was John
FLETCHER, a constable of New Gravel Lane, Shadwell. He swore that he had heard of the robbery and that when he
saw Mary KIDD at Bow Fair she told him she had seen the people that had robbed
her wearing her clothes. He
believed they had got a hint that Mary recognised them and so had moved away.
FLETCHER found out
on the Sunday morning after Whitsunday where William SHERBURD lived, in a lower
apartment in Perrywinkle Street, Ratcliff.
He said he had known him very well previously.
He went to the house with John ORANGE and Thomas COLE.
They went into the back room where BROOKS, the waterman, lived, but did
not find anything of Mary KIDD’s there. BROOKS
told them that a young man, a shoemaker (SHERBURD), lived in the fore room, but
he hadn’t been home all night. The
fore room was locked. FLETCHER broken down the door and they went in and searched the
place. FLETCHER found a piece of a gown which Mary KIDD said was cut
off her stolen gown, it having been cut shorter.
FLETCHER In the evening, FLETCHER went to a house in
Spice Island where he found Elizabeth RANSOM.
Two of his people had been there before him. He took Elizabeth RANSOM into custody and when Mary KIDD saw
her she claimed as her property a muslin handkerchief which Elizabeth RANSOM was
wearing. FLETCHER took the handkerchief from around Elizabeth’s neck
and kept it until he was asked to hand it over.
He was not sure whether or not he gave it over to Mary and Thomas KIDD.
However, he did state that the handkerchief presented in court was very
like the one he took from Elizabeth RANSOM.
The following Saturday at about 8 o’clock
in the morning, having received information as to the whereabouts of RANSOM and
SHERBURD, he went with John ORANGE, Thomas COLE and George TORRES to a little
house of two rooms in Haggerston Gardens. There
they apprehended SHERBURD and RANSOM together.
SHERBURD said that the place was his apartments. They searched the apartments and in the
window FLETCHER found the centre-bit produced in court.
RANSOM and SHERBURD had been having breakfast and were going to move on,
being in the process of packing up their things.
Afterwards, FLETCHER went
to the nearby apartments where RANSOM said he lived, but found nothing there.
FLETCHER further
stated that he verily and sincerely believed that SHERBURD lived at BROOKS’
and that BROOKS had come before the Magistrate and said that SHERBURD lodged
there, but SHERBURD was not present. FLETCHER said he found no particular keys,
but he saw two or three small keys, which weren’t picklock keys, so he left
them behind. He found them at
SHERBURD’s. When asked if they
were a large bunch of keys, FLETCHER said
they were not. When asked if they were produced before the Justice, FLETCHER
replied that they never were.
When asked further if he was sure of that, he replied he was totally sure
and stated that he would have apprehended them if they were material and had
been found in their apartments. The final witness called to give evidence
was John TANN. He swore that he
apprehended Lucy SHERBURD as a woman of loose character.
When asked if he knew where SHERBURD lodged, he replied he did, that
SHERBURD lodged in Whitechapel in his father’s house and had done so for a
good while. When asked if he knew
BROOKS, TANN replied that he had never seen him before the trial. Mr PEATT then asked Mary KIDD if most of the
things presented to the court were hers or her husband’s.
Mary KIDD replied yes. When
asked if she expected to take the things home with her, she replied that she
wished that to be so. When further
asked if she would be very loath to go home without them she replied yes. The court then asked Mary KIDD if among the
things she lost was a pair of nankeen breeches. “Yes,” she replied.
When asked if her husband was a larger sized or smaller sized man than
SHERBURD, Mary replied that they were about the same lustiness, but the breeches
had been a great deal to large for her husband. The prisoners’ defences and sentences were
documented in the Old Bailey Sessions Rolls of October 1786, as well as the Old
Bailey Sessions Papers. William SHERBURD’s defence was to say that
he knew nothing of it. When asked
what was his way of life, William replied that he was a shoemaker.
William, a labourer, late of the parish of St Dunstan, Stepney (otherwise
known as Slerbunheath), Middlesex, was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to
be hanged by the neck until he be dead. Lucy SHERBURD left her defence to her
counsel. Two witnesses were called
which gave her a good character. Lucy,
wife of William SHERBURD, was found not guilty. Thomas and Elizabeth RANSOM called three
witnesses which gave them a good character.
The court asked RANSOM and SHERBURD why they had left their lodgings.
Their reply was because trade was so dead. RANSOM further stated that John FLETCHER had
seen his wife buying and selling clothes in the fair. FLETCHER stated that he would rather not be called on for a
character reference. He could not
say that he had seen such and that if he was called on for a character reference
he might say something that might not be proper. Thomas RANSOM’s defence was that since
trade had been so dead he had dealt in Rosemary Lane in buying and selling old
clothes and that he had sufficient witnesses to testify that he did deal there.
Thomas, a labourer, also late of the parish of St Dunstan, Stepney,
Middlesex, was also found guilty of burglary and sentenced to be hanged by the
neck until he be dead. Elizabeth RANSOM’s left her defence to her
counsel. Elizabeth, the wife of
Thomas RANSOM, was found not guilty. William and Thomas were found guilty on both
counts – breaking and entering, and burglary at both 10 am and midnight on 5
June 1786. Lucy SHERBURD and
Elizabeth RANSOM were also charged with the second offence (breaking and
entering and burglary at 10 am on 5 June), but there being no evidence they were
both acquitted. The Old Bailey Sessions Rolls of October
1786 indicate that William and Thomas were committed by John STAPLES Esquire and
brought to His Majesty’s Gaol at Newgate on 16 October 1786.
Esther THORNTON, William’s future wife had been brought to Newgate Gaol
on 26 March 1786. Both William and Thomas, who were attainted
of several felonies and robberies and had received judgement of death, were
respited. The Old Bailey Sessions
Papers of 9 September 1789 state: The following capital Convicts who had been respited
during his Majesty’s pleasure, were set to the Bar, and offered Pardons on the
Conditions under mentioned, viz. The following capital convicts accepted his
Majesty’s pardon, on condition of being transported for life. William
Shurberd, Thomas Ransom. William (along with Thomas RANSOM) was held in Newgate Gaol under a temporary respite from execution for more than three years until September 1789 when his sentence was commuted to transportation for life. On 10 November 1789 he was discharged from Newgate Gaol for embarkation on the Scarborough transport. Esther THORNTON, William's future wife, was also held in Newgate Gaol for some of this time - from 18 April 1787 until 7 May 1789. Thomas RANSOM also embarked per Scarborough (or Salamander), whilst Esther THORNTON was embarked per Lady Juliana, both ships sailing in the second fleet (also known as the death fleet). |
|
If you have any
queries or comments, please email
me. |
