Hipótesis

There await you a dark, stone archway, and an iron gate beneath it. There will be the relentless grating of its hinges, with the heavy sound of ponderous keys; and a

coldness in the aspect of the building you are to enter will communicate itself to your soul, making you shudder to pass within its dreary portal. You must follow the guide along that narrow passage, where your footstep echoes cheerlessly through the dismal corridor. A doubly-locked door swings itself solemnly back, and there is silence, darkness, despair.1

Like Caroline Leakey’s novel The Broad Arrow, this thesis will track the life of a female convict. The way convict experience shaped the lives of both mistress and servant is a recurring theme of analysis. The bureaucratic record of convictism is only a portion of the material that has shaped this analysis. The private archive of personal documents forms the foundation and the public archive of colonial and convict records is the superstructure. Both are ornamented and refined by a wider literature of the history of private life, convict

experience, and colonialism.

Private papers

The Leake Papers form an outstanding collection of family and business correspondence, accounts, diaries and ephemera concentrated on the period after John Leake and his family arrived in Tasmania in 1823, and their life at the property they built, Rosedale, until his death in 1865.The Leake Papers contain a range of primary sources related to establishing

Rosedale as both an enterprise and a home and include Sarah Leake’s journal for 1854-55, John Leake’s day book, and the letters of Eliza Williams. Other documents in the collection that have been reviewed as background to this thesis include instructions and negotiations regarding the building, renovation and furnishing of the homestead; circulars and letters associated with hiring and maintaining free and convict farm workers and house servants;

1

Caroline Woolmer Leakey, The Broad Arrow: Being the Story of Maida Gwynnham a ‘Lifer’ in Van Diemen’s Land, Australian Edition, London: Richard Bently and Son, 1887, p. 4.

59

accounts and returns for stock purchases and sales, wool production, crops and land transactions; and expenses incurred in running the house and maintaining the family.2

The Leake Papers are also a collection of objects. These objects include journals, letters, notebooks, photographs, prints and miscellanea and are of interest in their own right, not just for what they contain. For all that they are but a segment of the documentary

evidence of the life of John Leake, his family and those identified as associated with him. There is no rhyme to what has been retained, or to what was bequeathed to the University of Tasmania. Researchers with an interest in the Leake Papers have included colonial scholars and family historians.3 Their work contributes alternative perspectives on social history, paternalism, master/servant relationships and family relationships central to this thesis.

Other archives of Leake papers exist: within the extant family at Rosedale and beyond, in other institutions and as disparate items in other collections.4 All indicate and reflect the material culture of their era. Riello identifies three ways material culture influences historical enquiry: history from things, history of things, and history and things.5 In this context, items in the Leake Papers are artefacts, with a narrative of their own, as well as contributing to the narrative of those who created them. The history of these objects is not the priority here: this thesis is not engaged in ‘object biography’ to borrow Riello’s colleague Dannehl’s phrase.6 For, apart from simple description of some of the artefacts used in this research, it is not intrinsically about them: it is about what they disclose. Riello’s work reminds us that narrative is not a methodology; rather it is an approach that is usable as an overlay upon various methodologies. Nonetheless, Riello’s ‘history and things’, taking objects in their own right and letting them be considered outside the mainstream historical narrative, requires ‘engagement with the artefact’ and its context, location, form, age, and

2 _{Leake Papers, Hobart: University of Tasmania Library Special and Rare Materials Collection.}

3 _{Department of History University of Tasmania, Reports on the Historical Manuscripts of Tasmania, Numbers}

1-7, Hobart: University of Tasmania, 1964; Alison Alexander, “The Public Role of Women in Tasmania, 1803- 1914,” unpublished PhD thesis, History, University of Tasmania, 1989; Susan M Kemp, “John Leake 1780- 1865: Early Settler in Tasmania,” unpublished paper, York: St Johns College, 1969; EM Yelland, The Baron of the Frontiers, South Australia-Victoria, Robert Rowland Leake (1811-1860), Melbourne: Hawthorn Press, 1973; Miranda Morris, Placing Women: A Methodology for the Identification, Interpretation and Promotion of the Heritage of Women in Tasmania, Hobart: Government of Tasmania, 1997.

4 _{For example, “Medical Record, Letitia Leake of Portland Bay,” Hobart: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage}

Office, 1854,) TA465; “Correspondence - John Leake, Rosedale, Campbell Town,” Hobart: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, NS3296/1/98.

5 _{Giorgio Riello, “Things that Shape History: The Material Culture of Historical Narratives,” in History and}

Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources, Karen Harvey, ed., London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 25-26.

6

Karin Dannehl, “Object Biographies: from Production to Consumption,” in History and Material Culture:A Student's Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources, Karen Harvey, ed., London: Routledge, 2009, p. 123.

60

condition to derive meaning from the object.7 This perspective has been borne in mind for each key primary source item.

It is important to recognise that Leake’s day book cannot be taken as a full record of the transactions of the estate business. There certainly were other books. For example, no wages are shown paid to William Short, a groom, despite records of his arrival and his behaviour in the day book. There are indications that specific accounts were kept for Leake’s other properties, Ashby and Lewisham. Leake’s book did not function in the same way as William Archer’s journal for Leake did not record commentary about daily life on the estate.8 He confined himself to categories of business and the figures that measured its progress. The day book has been used selectively, not transcribed. A fascinating project awaits the

researcher who tackles it more extensively.

The journal written by Sarah, John Leake’s spinster daughter, is a key source. It is a stiff account of the running of the Rosedale homestead and includes references to the convict servants and the work they did. It is a controlled chronicle of daily life. It does not include social notes or opinions about daily life. There is no gossip or musing and it is neither inquiring nor introspective. It is a strictly pared down description of the business of the day: instructions, meals, outings, activities and associates. It finds its place in colonial

historiography for its clarity and simplicity, and its insights into the private world of domestic life.

Eliza Williams’ letters and Sarah Leake’s journal were wholly transcribed for this project. This was the most effective way of ensuring full use of them in this research. To accomplish this it was essential to give some attention to transcription methodology and practice. Transcription is a textual representation for it does not seek to replicate the form or layout of the original. Transcription has become more of a topic of attention as interest in historical manuscripts shifted from ‘great man’ to ‘common man’. Generic items of study, letters, diaries and journals, are ‘... emerging from the obscurity of family trunks, overlooked library collections and courthouse vaults.’9 A review of the conventions and technical aspects of transcribing underpinned the practical task of copying out. The approach taken for this project is detailed in Appendix Three.10

7 _{Riello, “Things that Shape History: The Material Culture of Historical Narratives,” pp 26 and 29.} 8

Andrew John Gregg, “Convict Labour at Brickendon: The Diary of William Archer Senior,” unpublished BA Honours thesis, History, University of Tasmania, 2005.

9 _{George L Vogt, “Introduction: The Historical Editor's View,” in Literary and Historical Editing, George L}

Vogt and John Bush Jones, eds., Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Libraries, 198, p. 3.

10

Eliza William’s letters are presented in full at Appendix Three. The transcription of Sarah Leake’s journal has been published as already noted. John Leake’s day book has only been used selectively. Other documents, like

61

Authenticity of authorship is a consideration when working with original materials. John Leake’s day book was an example of his record keeping and accounting reflective of his career as a merchant and banker. Leake was a master who was very familiar with the

ledger.11 The day book had a paper hard cover, marked Day Book from January 1849, covered with random jotted numbers. It was sold to John Leake by Henry Dowling, Printer Bookseller and Stationer of Brisbane Street Launceston, as per the label on its inside cover. The page format is of an account book ruled with faint grey lines with an inch margin for the date, a wide column for the text, and three columns for the amount in pounds, shillings and pence. The columns are marked by red lines. The ink used by Leake was variously blue and black, occasionally pencil with some crossing out and rewriting. The handwriting varies but is predominantly John Leake’s as can be matched with letters he wrote to his wife and other documents. His sons, William, Arthur and/or Charles, may have made some entries: possibly others. Each year ends with a reckoning. No year represented in the day book recorded a deficit. Last entries in the accounts were for 22 January 1859 and Leake noted all entries for January 1859 had been copied into the new book, not extant. John Leake’s day book was darkened by wear and age.

The day book contains accounting detail of activities that are noted in other

documents in the Leake Papers, thus its authenticity was not in doubt. For example, payments to Mrs Haseldene, the washerwoman, are matched by laundry lists and by reports of the laundry being collected. The validity of the day book was confirmed by the replication of style and the internal unity and consistency of the documents across the Leake Papers. William Johnston’s daily journal, with its mentions of events and people that feature in both Leake’s day book and his daughter’s journal forms a key element in triangulation of the material in the day book.12

Sarah Leake wrote her journal on the lined pages of a quarto exercise book with a tri- colour marbled cover, using black ink. The depth of ink colour varies from entry to entry and between pages, but the form of the daily entries does not alter. The cover is not distinguished in any way; rather it appears simply to be an exercise book, one of a number available at the stationer’s shop frequented by the Leakes. Sarah commenced at the very top of the first page

William Johnston’s diary and William McCrae’s surgeon’s journal are noted in passing. The same methodology has been wherever transcription has been required.

11 _{Alan Atkinson, The Europeans in Australia: a History. Volume One: The Beginning, Melbourne: Oxford}

University Press, 1997. Atkinson notes the ledger as a symbol of power, p. 21.

12

William Johnston, “Diary and Household Notes, 12 March 1855 - 31 July 1857,” Hobart: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, 1855-57, NS2853.

62

and wrote through to the last line on the back page. Her opening words, ‘Journal continued 22nd April 1854,’ suggest she moved from the previous volume to the extant one, then on to a subsequent one at its conclusion. She rarely changed her mind about the words she had chosen, as would be evidenced by either crossing out or the excision of pages or parts of pages. Her writing varied in legibility depending, it would seem, on the amount of ink in the pen and on her care in physically writing. Some entries appear hurried and there are examples of entries written for several days in one sitting, as she noted was sometimes necessary, to catch up.13 The extant journal does not show wear. Taking Wevers’ point about a book’s life being visible,14 Sarah Leake’s journal does not have scratches and marks of reuse, no spills of ink, no signs of food or drink. There is much to suggest its pages were only ever turned once, to the last entry: not flicked through, revised or reread. The journal pages likely have been turned more often by researchers than by its writer.

That Sarah Leake’s journal is what it is purported to be can be verified by the match between the content of the journal and other documents held in the Leake Papers.15 Validity can be demonstrated by comparing the handwriting between documents written by Sarah Leake, as some letters written by her to members of her immediate family and her associates were retained and are held in the collection.16 Later volumes of the journal are also in a similar hand, and the differences in style and form can be attributed to Sarah Leake aging: the handwriting was less formed and clear, and lacked the penmanship of the volume being researched.17

The letters from Eliza Williams to members of the Leake family, one penned as Eliza Williams and the balance as Eliza Hanley, though few in number, span three decades from the time she left Rosedale in the late 1850s. Her letters show the wear of folding, posting, opening, and accumulated reading. Several show signs of being written in domestic upheaval, grubbied with the marks of small children’s fingers. Others are indicative of a more reflective opportunity for composition. There is no triangulation in favour of Eliza Williams’ relics. The only evidence of her handwriting is her letters to the Leakes. There was no suggestion

13

Sarah Elizabeth Leake, “Journal, 22 April 1854 - 7 May, 1855,” Leake Papers. Examples include the entries for 30 August 1854 and 6 October 1954.

14 _{Lydia Wevers, Reading on the Farm: Victorian Fiction and the Colonial World, Wellington: Victoria}

University Press, 2010, p. 23.

15

As noted elsewhere, Sarah Leake’s stay at Government House was corroborated by entries in the day book for expenses incurred by herself, her father and their groom for the visit.

16 _{Letters from Sarah Leake to her parents about a range of family matters, 1846-1852; Sarah Leake to Charles}

Leake, Monday, ND, c 1849-54; and, Sarah Leake to Miss Smith, 25 March 1874, Leake Papers.

17

Sarah Elizabeth Leake, “Journal, 1 October 1862 - 7 June 1867,” Leake Papers; Sarah Elizabeth Leake “Journal, 1 August 1877 - 22 February 1878; 9, 10 April 1878,” in Leake Papers.

63

the Hanley family held any personal papers, photographs or other memorabilia.18 It is clear from the existing letters that she wrote to others but the whereabouts of that correspondence is unknown.

Public parchments

Researchers with an interest in Tasmanian convict and colonial histories are greatly advantaged by the extant records. The development of digital technology further enhances their good fortune. Public records of this period are available in four main categories: Colonial Secretary’s Office, Governor’s Office, Convict Department and records of free immigration. The data base of the Female Convicts Research Centre, which contains transcriptions of Vandemonian female convict records and associated documents, is also invaluable. There core documents associated with the Convict Department for each female convict, the Conduct Record (CON 41), Indent (CON 15) and Description List (CON 19) are all fully searchable by name.19 Although some information is replicated between records, the full set provides a description of the person, including facial features, tattoos and scars; a record of their crime, sentence, place of trial, ship of transport, religion, literacy, marital status and native place; a record of service and placement and further offences including the name of the trial magistrate, places of incarceration, punishments and assignments; and, finally, a record of their attaining freedom or otherwise leaving the convict system. The detail for a convict far outweighs the record for a free settler.

The collective experience of convictism did not differentiate class or gender. The offender was:

...taken before the courts, sentenced, incarcerated for a long period in a prison or hulk, then shipped around the world to a penal colony where every aspect of their life would be recorded until they eventually received a full pardon and even then, often remained under police surveillance.20

18 _{Alice Meredith Hodgson, “Personal communication with Anastasia Pankiw Hanley,” Detroit, 2010.}

19 _{The records of the Convict Department are part of the UNESCO Memory of the World International Register,}

along with convict records from New South Wales and Western Australia. This is equivalent to world heritage listing for built and natural sites. This recognizes the extraordinary detail of documentation about the thousands of people forcibly transported to form the beginnings of British colonies of Australia. The capacity to search these documents is due, in no small part, to the Founders and Survivors Project, properly titled: Founders and Survivors, Australian life courses in historical context, 1803-1920. www.foundersandsurvivors.org/project.

64

Convicts shared an experience unimagined by free settlers. They were bound, not by the actual voyage, the loss of family and friends, or the uncertainty of a new land, but by the denial of liberty and autonomy.

Tasmania’s system of convict management was not static. It developed and changed under the influence of different administrative regimes, and varied in its impact on the convict and the free population over time. There were broadly two main systems of convict management once the convict had been formally disembarked: assignment and probation.21 Concern that the threat of a sentence of transportation had failed to be a rein on crime had led Westminster to seek advice. Secretary of State, Lord Bathurst commissioned John Thomas Bigge to report on ‘whether transportation was any longer efficient as a punishment.’22 The first of his reports was published in 1822 and reform was a key element of the

recommendations.23 Assigned deployment to public works or private service became the primary process of punishment in the colony. Convicts would be assessed on the basis of the record of their trade or skills, including their statement of their situation and the time they were to serve. Much depended on both the disposition of the master and the convict. Most women were assigned to private domestic service after a period, often short, in a female