By Caitlin Adams

Supported by a Create NSW Arts and Cultural Grant – Old Parramattans & St. John’s First Fleeters

On 21 June 1786, Elizabeth Gloster arrived at the workhouse run by the parish of St. Botolph Aldgate, in labour.[1] She had wound her way through London’s squalid, impoverished and dangerous streets by chair—a popular form of transport consisting of a chair carried within a ‘box-like frame’ by two men.[2] Whether or not Elizabeth possessed the fare for the chair, she did not have sufficient means to pay for accommodation. Instead, she would spend her lying-in period—the weeks surrounding childbirth—in the workhouse. Short of delivering a child in the streets or the fields, workhouse labours were the purview of society’s poorest. Workhouses were often under-resourced, filthy and overcrowded.[3] It was into this environment that Elizabeth gave birth to a son, Cornelius. How did Elizabeth come to be alone and unsupported? What circumstances led to her desperate admittance to the workhouse? Where was the child’s father?

While Elizabeth was labouring in St. Botolph’s, her husband William was in prison and awaiting transportation for the crime of theft. Survival was difficult for families who found themselves without the support of male wage-earners. Women and children might show resilience and resourcefulness in the face of poverty, but male absence could also lead to destitution and further family separation. This joint biography traces the lives of William Gloster and James Ogden; two convicts who arrived at Kamay (Botany Bay) with the First Fleet on board the Alexander. The stories of William’s and James’s lives—their arrests, transportation and eventual deaths—are not simply about the actions of these men themselves. They are equally stories of the families they left behind.

William Gloster: The Domino Effect

William’s transportation had a profound effect on the fortunes of the family he left in England. It was by no means unusual that Elizabeth and her children struggled to survive after William’s arrest. Relationships between men and women were highly uneven in eighteenth-century London. Men’s wages were higher, and their jobs more mobile. As such, men were better able to escape the costs and effort of caring for children. On the other hand, women had fewer employment options at lower wages and with less mobility. Poor families often depended on male wages, particularly when there were young children to care for.[4] Looking after infants limited women’s employment options and the cost of providing for children was often more than women could earn.[5] Although lone mothers employed a number of survival techniques, selling their clothes and appealing to friends, employers and family for help, survival without a male breadwinner was difficult.[6]

When Elizabeth Stapleton married William she was likely in need of his financial support and protection. She had at least one child, seven-year-old George. Whether or not she had lived and worked alongside George’s biological father, Wesley Goulding, she had not been married to him. William and Elizabeth married a mere three months after Wesley’s death, suggesting she had sought out a new wage-earner to support herself and her small son.[7] Yet William’s support for his young family was short-lived. Within two years of their marriage, apparently after Elizabeth had borne another two children, William was arrested.[8]

William appeared before the Middlesex Jury at the Old Bailey charged with stealing three coach-glasses and an overcoat, which together came to the value of 39 shillings. A witness, Sarah Hales, testified that on her way to work at ‘about a quarter after four’ on 18 June 1785 she saw William ‘look through the key-hole of Mr. Newman’s stable door.’[9] She continued her story, stating, ‘my business called me off, and in about ten minutes I saw him come from off Mr. Whitworth’s coach house door, he had a great coat and a bag.’[10] Another witness claimed the strings on Whitworth’s coach had been cut and matched those still partially attached to the glasses.[11] Despite William’s claim that he had found the items on a ‘dunghill’ and the willingness of a witness to give him ‘a very good character,’ William was charged and sentenced to be ‘transported for seven years, to such place or places, as his Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council shall think fit to declare and appoint.’[12]

Desperate Measures for Elizabeth Gloster

William’s sentence not only transformed his own life, but also that of his wife and young family. Elizabeth’s arrival at the workhouse six months before William had even boarded the Alexander suggests his family had slipped into destitution following his arrest.[13] The parish workhouse was one of many institutions available to poor and lone mothers in London during the late eighteenth century. From the 1740s, widows, abandoned wives, unmarried mothers—so called ‘bastard bearers’—or prostitutes could apply to the London Foundling Hospital, Lock Hospital for venereal cases, Magdalen Hospital and a number of lying-in hospitals.[14] These charities may have loomed large in the minds of philanthropists, parishioners and paupers, but most lone mothers did not give birth in either the lying-in charities or the workhouse.[15] Recent research on unmarried mothers—with whom widowed and abandoned women like Elizabeth shared similar experiences—suggests most lone mothers gave birth at home.[16] It is unlikely that Elizabeth would have sought refuge at the workhouse if she had had a home to labour in.

Elizabeth must have been profoundly desperate, as she was not entitled to care from the workhouse at St. Botolph. The Old Poor Law in Britain was created to ensure people had access to charitable support, yet the process for determining who was responsible for this support was complex. To access parish aid, English plebeians generally needed to legally establish that they belonged to a specific parish, referred to as having ‘settlement.’ Elizabeth’s entry under ‘when and how Belongs’ in the workhouse register reads ‘casual,’ indicating she did not have clear settlement and certainly did not belong to St. Botolph. Perhaps it was for this reason Elizabeth arrived at the workhouse already in labour. While some parishes would turn away women without a legal right to aid, others would provide support to those in dire enough circumstances.[17]

Reluctance to enter the workhouse, too, may have led Elizabeth to resort to it only when her labour was already well underway. Although conditions differed between workhouses, they could be overcrowded and unsanitary, leading to the spread of contagious diseases and vermin.[18] Moreover, as described by their names, they were places of work and pregnant women were not exempt.[19] This was not always the case, and it is possible that the workhouse offered Elizabeth better respite and care than she would otherwise have had access to.[20] Yet workhouses were also well known for having high rates of infant death.[21] While infant mortality had declined towards the end of the eighteenth century, deaths in institutions like the workhouse could still be significantly higher.[22] On the same day as Elizabeth’s arrival, her son’s name was entered in the workhouse register. The following week, on 30 June, Cornelius Gloster, ‘son of W[illia]m & Eliz[abe]th,’ was baptised in the parish church. He only lived for three more days. Elizabeth stayed in the workhouse for another two weeks, then left as she had arrived: alone.[23]

Elizabeth’s short stay in the workhouse was not her first interaction with the parish of St. Botolph. Six days before her delivery, Elizabeth had testified before a magistrate to determine whether she was eligible for parish support for an illegitimate child. This bastardy examination, as it was called, further highlights Elizabeth’s desperation. Examinations were not, in and of themselves, uncommon. Many lone mothers sought aid in this way. Still, Elizabeth’s interview was distinctly odd. She explained that, prior to her marriage to William, she had borne a child to Wesley Goulding, who had been dead for approximately two years. This much was routine. ‘Illegitimate’ children who were unsupported by their fathers were eligible for parish assistance. However, unmarried mothers seeking aid were required to alert the parish and undergo examination more than forty days before they expected to give birth.[24] When Elizabeth came before the bench George was almost nine years of age. The parish was only obliged to support children under the age of seven, making George too old to receive assistance and more likely to be apprenticed out to a trade.[25] George also did not have settlement at St. Botolph. Rather, as the child of unmarried parents, George belonged to the parish where he was born, which Elizabeth claimed was Allhallows, Barking.[26] Elizabeth probably understood she had little claim to aid for George, as the English working classes had detailed knowledge of the poor laws, their own rights and its limits.[27] So, lacking settlement at St. Botolph’s, and years after Elizabeth was entitled to support for her illegitimate son, this examination reads like a desperate attempt for help. Yet Elizabeth’s attempts to manipulate the poor law system also tell the story of a woman determined to survive and to provide for her children.

Without the support of her husband, Elizabeth found herself in dire need. William’s transportation not only left her without a male wage-earner, it arguably limited her ability to apply for aid from the parish. As the abandoned wife of a convict, she was less likely to win the sympathy and support the parish offered to widows.[28] Similarly, as William and Elizabeth were married, she was not eligible for parish payments offered to unmarried mothers. While she could have found another male partner, and cohabitation was not unusual among the working classes in the East End in London, being legally married may also have limited her ability to find a new breadwinner.[29] Under British law she was required to endure seven years of absence and to be unaware that William was still living before the marriage could be dissolved.[30] William had been physically separated from his wife and family, but their fortunes continued to be intertwined.

New Beginnings for William Gloster

As the repercussions of William’s sentence continued to resonate through Elizabeth’s life, William himself seems to have been fairly unaffected by his previous marriage. For William, arrival in the colony not only represented a new start in a new place, but also the beginning of a new family. Less than a month after his arrival in New South Wales, William married another First Fleet convict, Charlotte Springmore, or Sprigmore per Lady Penrhyn.[31]  Although William was a married man, few convicts hoped to be reunited with their spouses, either by returning to England themselves or through family members following them to the colony. Intimate relationships in the early colony were shifting and often lacked legal validity, and both bigamy and cohabitation were common among convicts and the working classes.[32] Whether or not they married for love, lust, survival or stability is impossible to say. What is clear is that William was able to begin again in New South Wales and any claim his English family may have retained on his life was solely emotional.

Charlotte and William spent several years together. During this time William worked as a carpenter on the HMS Sirius and the couple became parents to a daughter, Mary, baptised 30 November 1788.[33] Nevertheless, after only a brief time together, William left the colony. On 2 November 1793 he boarded the ship Britannia, headed for India.[34] Like Elizabeth Gloster before her, Charlotte was left without the support of a male wage-earner and with the burden of at least one young child.[35]

Offspring for James Ogden

Like William Gloster, James Ogden arrived at Kamay (Botany Bay) on the Alexander. He had been arrested for theft in Manchester, where he had been working as a labourer.[36] With Peter Wilson, Barnaby Murphy and Edward Holt, James had stolen a crystal stone, six pieces of gold and six of silver from James Higginbotham.[37] On 20 January 1785 at the Lancaster Quarter Sessions, James, Barnaby and Peter were all sentenced to be ‘Transported beyond the Seas for the Space of Seven years.’[38] Two years later, James boarded the Alexander bound for Kamay (Botany Bay).[39] A mere 18 years of age when he arrived, James took longer than William to begin a family—at least, officially. As we have seen, intimate relationships could be fluid or lack legal validation. Records reveal that on 9 January 1800, twelve years after his arrival, James married Elizabeth Kelsall, (entered in the register as ‘Kelso’).[40] Elizabeth had arrived in the colony eighteen months earlier on Britannia III (1798), similarly under sentence for seven years. She was born in Manchester in 1778, and tried in the same city at the age of 20.[41] The two of them settled at a region formerly known as ‘The Ponds’ in Wallumettagal Country, about three miles east of Parramatta, where James was listed in the 1806 muster as holding 50 acres.[42]

Elizabeth ostensibly gained her freedom on 9 June 1810, yet by this point she had spent a decade bearing and caring for children.[43] Over fifteen years, she gave birth to seven offspring. Elizabeth’s first and only daughter, Sarah, born 20 March 1801, did not live past early childhood.[44] When she died on 19 September 1804, the couple had just one other child, fifteen-month-old John.[45] John was soon followed by James in 1805, Thomas in 1808, Samuel in 1810, and David in 1812. During these years it seems the family largely kept to themselves. Their church attendance appears to have been scant, based on their children’s baptisms. Three of the children were baptised eighteen months after they were born. Indeed, Thomas was not baptised until he was three, his family preferring to wait until the arrival of his younger brother Samuel, when the boys could be baptised in bulk.[46]

Uniquely, the youngest Ogden child, Jeremiah, was baptised only a day after he was born. Elizabeth gave birth to Jeremiah on 22 May 1815. Then, due to complications during or after her labour, she tragically died at the early age of 37.[47] She was buried in the Parramatta Burial Ground (St. John’s Cemetery) the next day.[48] Even here, the family’s pragmatic approach to churchgoing was evident. James had Jeremiah baptised on the same day as Elizabeth’s funeral.

Colonial Absences

William’s Wiley Wife

At the same time James and Elizabeth Ogden were busy establishing their family, William Gloster had left another wife to provide for her family alone. William’s absence may have been daunting; Charlotte, though, was accustomed to taking care of herself. The record of her trial at the Old Bailey paints a picture of a tough and resilient woman who would use what means and cunning it took to survive.

Prior to her arrest, Charlotte had also resided in London. Indeed, it is possible William and Elizabeth Gloster were part of Charlotte’s pre-transportation life in London, as she committed her crime in Catherine-Wheel Alley, a five-minute walk away from St. Botolph’s workhouse where Elizabeth gave birth. On 30 September 1785, Charlotte was working as a prostitute, standing ‘together at the usual place’ with Mary Harrison.[49] As Charlotte and Mary noticed a woman called Susannah Edhouse walk past them, they complained loudly to each other that ‘there are so many sly whores now it is impossible for a public whore to get her living.’[50] In her deposition, Susannah did not directly address their accusation that she was privately employed as a prostitute, but her statement made it clear that Charlotte and Mary had accused Susannah of putting them out of business. The women then assaulted Susannah, throwing caustic liquid on her dress and burning a considerable hole. Susannah explained that this was not their first attack, as they had similarly accosted her earlier in the week and burnt her handkerchief.[51]

The determination Charlotte had shown in securing her livelihood must have come in useful when William left. However, while Charlotte may have known how to survive in the urban metropolis, the tiny, unsympathetic colony would have proved a new challenge. London boasted a number of private charities, and poor families could access parish aid through the poor laws. In the early years in New South Wales there was little to no support for poor families. As historian Brian Dickey dryly notes, ‘who needed a poor law in a jail?’[52]

In spite of this lack of support and the encumbrance of a young family, Charlotte seemed to take advantage of the few options she had. After William’s departure she became a fairly successful landholder in Castlereagh, in Dharug Country—despite the Deerubbin (Hawkesbury River) region’s propensity for floods.[53] In 1809 her land was productive enough that she was able to supply the government store in February and April. After this date it is possible she suffered losses in the June floods, as her name does not appear on surviving lists for the remainder of the year.[54]

By the end of her life in 1822, Charlotte had achieved a level of security. She possessed property and appears to have found companionship in a new male partner. Charlotte lived with Samuel Whitney until about 1820, when he was charged with receiving stolen beef. Sentenced for fourteen years and transported to Muloobinba (Newcastle) in Awabakal and Worimi Country, it is unlikely Samuel and Charlotte saw each other again, as she died two years later, in 1822.[55] According to the coroner’s inquest, she ‘accidentally fell into a hole of water…suffocated and drowned of which said suffocation and drowning she the said Charlotte Gloucester then and there instantly died.’[56] Even in light of the resourcefulness she had shown throughout her life, and her tenacious hold on survival, life in the early colony was always precarious.

The Ogden Orphans

Women were not the only family members who had to pick up the pieces after a male wage-earner absconded or died. In 1820, James Ogden’s death left six orphans. Given the family’s seemingly intermittent attendance at St. John’s Church, it is perhaps unsurprising that when James was buried at the Parramatta Burial Ground (St. John’s Cemetery) on 19 September 1820 his name was incorrectly entered as ‘William’ in the parish register.[57] This loss was a devastating blow for the Ogden family. Although John, the eldest, was not yet eighteen, the older boys were evidently able to take over the running of the farm, as the 1822 muster lists the second son, James, as the landholder, a title which passed to Thomas by 1824.[58] Unfortunately, there is also evidence they were unable to combine this labour with the care of their younger siblings. In a nascent colony bereft of poor laws or a comprehensive welfare system, the boys did not have many options for relief.

One of the few institutions they could apply to was the Male Orphan School. The Orphan Schools had their inception when Governor Philip Gidley King established a refuge for destitute female children in 1801. Despite being known as the Female Orphan School or Institution, King intended the School to provide for both orphaned girls and girls whose parents might provide—what he perceived as—corrupting influences.[59] Nevertheless, it was not until 1818 that Governor Lachlan Macquarie established a similar school for boys in the former Female Orphan School premises at George Street, Cadi (Sydney), Cadigal Country. Like King, Macquarie regarded the School as compensating for the inadequate care of convict or immoral parents. He described his intentions in establishing the school by stating that,

[h]aving often viewed…the wretched and neglected state of a great number of helpless illegitimate orphan children consigned to want and misery by their unnatural and unfeeling parents…I was induced to form and establish an Asylum for their relief.[60]

A committee was established to oversee the running of the School and to approve applications to admit destitute boys.[61] The Schools quickly became part of the penal system.[62] When convict women arrived in New South Wales they had their children taken from them and placed in the Schools. Similarly, those detained in the Parramatta Female Factory had their offspring admitted to the Schools from the age of three.[63]

It was to this charity that Thomas, the third eldest, applied in 1820. Despite being a mere 12 years of age himself, two months after his father’s death he managed to secure places for Samuel and David.[64] It took another month for Jeremiah to enter the institution, perhaps because, according to the School’s rules and regulations, he was two years too young to be admitted.[65] But, as for many colonial charities, these rules were not always followed and Jeremiah was eventually registered in the Male Admissions Book, aged only five years.[66]

It is hard to know exactly how the Ogden children fared at the Orphan School, but there are indications their residence there was not pleasant. On 8 October 1823, Samuel entered the Committee minutes when he absconded from the School for a couple of days. Accompanied by another resident, William London, Samuel left the School on Monday morning and arrived back the next evening, although the manner of his return was not recorded.[67] Whether this was a genuine escape attempt or prank, Samuel was well justified in wanting to leave the School. Just as for English workhouses, conditions in the Schools could be uncomfortable and oppressive. Children were closely supervised and subjected to harsh discipline, including corporal punishment and solitary confinement. The Ogden boys also entered the Schools when they were arguably at their least hygienic. Overcrowding was rampant, with communicable diseases spreading uncontrolled between children. In 1824, male inmates moved from the unhealthy and structurally unsound premises at George Street to new buildings at Cabramatta, Cabrogal Country, only to experience consistent water shortages, making it difficult for children to wash.[68] Unsurprisingly, given these conditions, charitable institutions in the colony—like English workhouses—could have high mortality rates.[69] David, the second youngest, was one of multiple children to die in the Schools. In June 1825, he succumbed to dysentery.[70]

In contrast to the English workhouse, the colonial Orphan Schools made some attempts to advance the prospects of their beneficiaries. They provided children with an education and the apprenticeship system meant some children were presented with the opportunity to learn a trade and so provide for themselves. This system was not necessarily altruistic. It both provided labour and service to colonists and sought to avoid developing a dependent poor, as was criticised in England.[71] Through this system, both Samuel and Jeremiah were put out to be apprenticed. Samuel was placed out at the age of 17 to a Mr White.[72] Despite being five years younger, Jeremiah was apprenticed the same year to David Smith, a tailor.[73] Although the Ogden family was largely able to weather their father James’s death, his absence resulted in family separation and the loss of a brother.

*          *          *

The lives of William Gloster and James Ogden show how precarious family life could be in eighteenth-century England and in the nascent colony of New South Wales. Transportation may have altered these men’s lives, but it equally shaped the fortunes of their families—both those left behind and the new families they formed in the colony. William’s story shows the ways women often bore the burden of men’s absences. Yet it also reveals how resilient and tenacious women could be in providing for their children without the support of a male wage. Elizabeth Ogden likewise carried the chief costs of childbearing and rearing, which ultimately resulted in her death. Although the family were able to bear her absence, the children were unable to stay together when faced with the loss of a second parent. The Orphan Schools sought, to some extent, to improve the lives of their charges; however, this had mixed results for the Ogdens. The dangers of institutional living, whether in the workhouse or the Orphan Schools, were experienced by both families. In Georgian England and New South Wales, the line between survival and scarcity was thin.

CITE THIS

Caitlin Adams, “Lives Left Behind: The Forsaken Families of First Fleeters,” St. John’s Online, (2019), https://stjohnsonline.org/bio/james-ogden, accessed [insert current date]

Acknowledgements

Biographical selection, assignment, research assistance, editing & multimedia: Michaela Ann Cameron.

References

Primary Sources

• Tim Hitchcock, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard and Jamie McLaughlin, et al., The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913 (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 31 July 2019).
• Tim Hitchcock, Robert Shoemaker, Sharon Howard and Jamie McLaughlin, et al., London Lives, 1690–1800 (www.londonlives.org, version 1.1, 31 July 2019).
• Locating London’s Past (www.locatinglondon.org, version 1.0, 19 June 2019).
• Male Orphan School, Male Orphan School Roll Book, 1 January 1819–18 September 1848, (Bonnyrigg, New South Wales), C 200, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.

Secondary Sources

• Beryl M. Bubacz, “The Female and Male Orphan Schools in New South Wales, 1801–1850,” (PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2007), http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2474, accessed 8 June 2019.
• Brian Dickey, “Why Were There No Poor Laws in Australia?” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 4, No. 2, (1992): 111–33.
• Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015).
• Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
• Tim Hitchcock, Peter King and Pamela Sharpe (eds.), Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640–1840, (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1997).
• Steven King, “Negotiating the Law of Poor Relief in England, 1800–1840,” History, Vol. 96, No. 4, (2011): 410–35.
• Steven King, Poverty and Welfare in England, 1700–1850: A Regional Perspective, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000).
• Alysa Levene, Thomas Nutt and Samantha Williams (eds.), Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700–1920, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
• John Ramsland, Children of the Back Lanes: Destitute and Neglected Children in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1986).
• Dianne Snow, “Gender Relations and the Female Orphan School in Early Nineteenth Century New South Wales,” in Sandra Taylor and Miriam Henry (eds.), Battlers and Bluestockings: Women’s Place in Australian Education, (Canberra: Australian College of Education, 1989).
• Samantha Williams, Poverty, Gender and Life-Cycle Under the English Poor Law, 1760–1834, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2011).
• Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

NOTES

[1] London Lives 1690 to 1800 (https://www.londonlives.org/, version 2.0), “St. Botolph Aldgate Parish: Register of Paupers Admitted to the Workhouse, 18 December 1786,” (LL ref: GLBARW111020073), Image 73, https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=GLBARW11102RW111020073, accessed 8 June 2019.

[2] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 23; Mary Anne Garry, “Sedan Chairmen in Eighteenth-Century London,” The Journal of Transport History, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2016): 46.

[3] Samantha Williams, Poverty, Gender and Life-Cycle Under the English Poor Law, 1760–1834, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2011), p. 52; Steven King, Poverty and Welfare in England, 1700–1850: A Regional Perspective, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 38, 162­–3.

[4] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 43, 46.

[5] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 113, 134–35.

[6] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 35, 46, 136, ch 8.

[7] London Lives 1690 to 1800 (https://www.londonlives.org/, version 2.0), “St. Botolph Aldgate Parish: Pauper Settlement, Vagrancy and Bastardy Exams, 15 June 1786,” (LL ref: GLBAEP103220048), Image 48, https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=GLBAEP103220048, accessed 8 June 2019.

[8] The information that Elizabeth had another two children during her relationship with William Gloster by June 1785 comes from William’s Old Bailey trial record. The same person who vouched for his good character also noted ‘he had three children,’ one of whom was his stepson George. See Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 29 June 1785, trial of WILLIAM GLOSTER (t17850629-86), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17850629-86, accessed 8 June 2019.

[9] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 29 June 1785, trial of WILLIAM GLOSTER (t17850629-86), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17850629-86, accessed 8 June 2019.

[10] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 29 June 1785, trial of WILLIAM GLOSTER (t17850629-86), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17850629-86, accessed 8 June 2019.

[11] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 29 June 1785, trial of WILLIAM GLOSTER (t17850629-86), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17850629-86, accessed 8 June 2019.

[12] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 29 June 1785, punishment summary of WILLIAM GLOSTER (s17850629-1), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=s17850629-1, accessed 8 June 2019.

[13] William boarded on 6 January 1787. We can assume that Cornelius was Gloster’s biological son. As Elizabeth underwent a bastardy examination for her eldest son, George, just prior to giving birth, it is unlikely she would have done this if she could have claimed she was expecting a ‘bastard.’ Given Cornelius’s birthdate, therefore, he would have been conceived while William Gloster was in gaol. This was a common occurrence in this period because family members were able to visit prisoners. John Howard, The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, (Warrington: William Eyres, 1777), p.17.

[14] Tim Hitchcock, “‘Unlawfully Begotten on her Body’: Illegitimacy and the Parish Poor in St Luke’s Chelsea,” in Tim Hitchcock, Peter King and Pamela Sharpe (eds.), Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640–1840, (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1997), pp. 75–6; Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 53; Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 173–202.

[15] Adrian Wilson, The Making of Man Midwifery: Childbirth in England, 1660–1779, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), p. 146; Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 146.

[16] Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 91; Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 14, 42–6; London Lives 1690 to 1800 (https://www.londonlives.org/, version 2.0), “St. Botolph Aldgate Parish: Register of Paupers Admitted to the Workhouse,” 18 December 1786, (LL ref: GLBARW111020073), Image 73, https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=GLBARW11102RW111020073, accessed 8 June 2019.

[17] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 24–6.

[18] Timothy V. Hitchcock, (PhD Diss.), “The English Workhouse: A Study in Institutional Poor Relief in Selected Counties, 1696–1750,” (Oxford University of Oxford, 1985), ch. 6, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:57a30e82-1101-4b09-ab83-8e8e271c77f4/download_file?safe_filename=602344969.pdf&file_format=application%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Thesis, accessed 3 July 2019.

[19] Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 134.

[20] Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), pp. 129–34.

[21] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 136.

[22] Alysa Levene, “The Mortality Penalty of Illegitimate Children: Foundlings and Poor Children in Eighteenth-Century England,” in Alysa Levene, Thomas Nutt and Samantha Williams (eds.), Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700–1920, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 38.

[23] London Lives 1690 to 1800 (https://www.londonlives.org/, version 2.0), St Botolph Aldgate Parish: Register of Paupers Admitted to the Workhouse,” 18 December 1786, (LL ref: GLBARW111020073), Image 73, https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=GLBARW11102RW111020073, accessed 8 June 2019.

[24] Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 166.

[25] Pamela Sharpe, “Poor Children as Apprentices in Colyton, 1598–1830,” Continuity and Change, Vol. 6, No. 2, (1991): 254.

[26] London Lives 1690 to 1800 (https://www.londonlives.org/, version 2.0), St Botolph Aldgate Parish: Pauper Settlement, Vagrancy and Bastardy Exams, 15 June 1786, (LL ref: GLBAEP103220048), Image 48, https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=GLBAEP103220048, accessed 8 June 2019.

[27] Steven King, “Negotiating the Law of Poor Relief in England, 1800–1840,” History, Vol. 96, No. 4, (2011): 410–35.

[28] Samantha Williams, Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis, 1700–1850: Pregnancy, the Poor Law and Provision, (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 189.

[29] Tanya Evans, ‘Unfortunate Objects’: Lone Mothers in Eighteenth-Century London, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 37–8.

[30] David Kent and Norma Townsend, “Some Aspects of Colonial Marriage: A Case Study of the Swing Protestors,” Labour History, No. 74, (1998): 42.

[31] Charlotte had served more than two years of her seven-year sentence by the time she arrived in the colony. Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 19 October 1785, punishment summary of CHARLOTTE SPRINGMORE (s17851019-1), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=s17851019-1, accessed 8 June 2019. New South Wales Government, Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages (https://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/), Marriage of WILLIAM GLOSTER and CHARLOTTE SPRIGMORE, Norfolk Island, New South Wales, 1788, Vol. V, Registration No. 6/1788 V17886 4, (Chippendale NSW: NSW BDM, 2019), https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?2, accessed 8 June 2019.

[32] Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015), pp. 27–32, 46; David Kent and Norma Townsend, “Some Aspects of Colonial Marriage: A Case Study of the Swing Protestors,” Labour History, No. 74, (1998): 42–42.

[33] “GLOSTER, William (c1749–1792?)” in Mollie Gillen, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, (Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989), p. 143; New South Wales Government, Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages (https://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/), Birth of MARY GLOSTER, Daughter of WILLIAM GLOSTER and CHARLOTTE SPRIGMORE, New South Wales, 1799, Vol. V179938 4, Registration No. 38/1799 V179938 4, (Chippendale NSW: NSW BDM, 2019), https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?2, accessed 8 June 2019.

[34] New South Wales, Commissariat, Norfolk Island Victualling Book, 1792–1796, A1958, Microfilm CY3467, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales; “GLOSTER, William (c1749–1792?)” in Mollie Gillen, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, (Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989), p. 143. Note: Gillen also implied the First Fleeter WILLIAM GLOSTER was buried at St. John’s Cemetery, Parramatta, by stating, “The burial of a William “Glister” was recorded at St. John’s, Parramatta on 31 July 1792.” However, this was not the First Fleeter but a convict named WILLIAM GLISTER who arrived per Pitt (1792) and was buried at St. John’s Cemetery. The First Fleeter’s movements are unknown after the victualling records noted that he left Norfolk Island per Britannia on 2 November 1793.

[35] Gillen’s biography suggests Charlotte and William had two more children while they were on Norfolk Island. However, later correspondence in the Colonial Secretary’s papers state that Mary was Charlotte’s only heir. “SPRINGMORE, Charlotte (c1756–1822)” in Mollie Gillen, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, (Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989), p. 341; Letter dated 27 November 1824, Castlereagh House, regarding the deceased Charlotte Gloster’s land, New South Wales Government, Copies of letters sent and received, mainly within the colony, or “Document books Nos. 1–3,” Series: 938; Reels: 6016–6017; Page: 151, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[36] Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records and Petitions, 17th–19th Century, Microfilm. James Ogden, Lancashire, England, 1785, Record Type: Order Books; Year Range: 1785; Reference: RB 29, (Lancashire Record Office, Preston, England).

[37] “OGDEN, James (c1768–1820?),” in Mollie Gillen, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, (Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989), p. 267; Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records and Petitions, 17th–19th Century, Microfilm. James Ogden, Manchester, Lancashire, England, Session: Epiphany; Quarter Session Place: Manchester; Record Type: Petitions; Year Range: 1785; Reference: QSP 2190/1-26, (Lancashire Record Office, Preston, England) and Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records and Petitions, 17th–19th Century, Microfilm. James Ogden, Lancashire, England, 1785, Record Type: Order Books; Year Range: 1785; Image: 35; Reference: RB 29, (Lancashire Record Office, Preston, England).

[38] Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records and Petitions, 17th–19th Century, Microfilm. James Ogden, Lancashire, England, 1785, Record Type: Order Books; Year Range: 1785; Image: 37; Reference: RB 29, (Lancashire Record Office, Preston, England) and New South Wales Government, Indents First Fleet, Second Fleet and Ships, Series: NRS 1150; Item: [SZ115]; Microfiche: 620, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[39] The National Archives of the UK, Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Microfilm Publication: HO 10; Piece: 6, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England). For St. John’s Online’s dual naming policy, see Michaela Ann Cameron, “Name-Calling: A Dual Naming Policy,” in St. John’s Online, (2020), https://stjohnsonline.org/editorial-policies/name-calling-a-dual-naming-policy/, accessed 13 April 2020. The essay discusses giving prime position to indigenous endonyms and subordinating European imposed exonyms in both the colonial Australian and colonial American contexts and was adapted from “Name-Calling: Notes on Terminology,” in Michaela Ann Cameron, (Ph.D. Diss.), “Stealing the Turtle’s Voice: A Dual History of Western and Algonquian-Iroquoian Soundways from Creation to Re-creation,” (Sydney: Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, 2018), pp. 25–35, http://bit.ly/stealingturtle, accessed 25 August 2019.

[40] Marriage of JAMES OGDIN and ELIZABETH KELSO [sic], 9 January 1800, Parish Marriage Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[41] Baptism of ELIZABETH KELSALL, 15 March 1778, Cathedral and Collegiate Church of St. Mary, St. Denys and St. George, Manchester [Manchester Cathedral], Anglican Parish Registers, (Manchester Cathedral, Manchester, England) and Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records and Petitions, 17th–19th Century, Microfilm. Elizabeth Kelsall, Lancashire, England, 1797, Record Type: Order Books; Year Range: 1797; Image: 174; Reference: RB 33, (Lancashire Record Office, Preston, England) and New South Wales Government, Indents First Fleet, Second Fleet and Ships, Series: NRS 1150; Item: [SZ115]; Microfiche: 624, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[42] The National Archives of the UK, Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, HO 10; Piece: 37, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England); J. Burr, G. Ballisat, and George Neele, Plan of the Allotments of Ground, Granted from the Crown in New South Wales [cartographic Material] / J. Burr & G. Ballisat, (London, 1814), Cb 81/6 / FL4665137, Dixson Map Collection, State Library of New South Wales, https://digital.sl.nsw.gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?embedded=true&toolbar=false&dps_pid=FL4665137, accessed 3 July 2019.

[43] “ELIZABETH KELSALL, 9 June 1810, Certificate of Freedom Date: 9 June 1810,” New South Wales Government, Butts of Certificates of Freedom, Series: NRS 12208; Reel: 601, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales); ELIZABETH KELSALL, 23 June 1810, Receipt of Certificate of Freedom, see New South Wales Government, Special Bundles, 1794–1825, Series: 898; Reels: 6020-6040, 6070; Fiche: 3260–3312; Page: 64, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia) and  New South Wales Government, Butts of Certificates of Freedom, Series: NRS 1165, 1166, 1167, 12208, 12210; Reels: 601, 602, 604, 982–1027, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales).

[44] Baptism of SARAH OGDEN, 24 May 1801, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia; Burial of SARAH OGDEN, 19 September 1804, Parish Burial Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[45] Baptism of JOHN HOGDEN [sic], 21 August 1803, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[46] Baptism of JAMES HOGDEN [sic], 5 April 1807, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia; Baptism of THOMAS OGDEN, 15 September 1811, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia; Baptism of DAVID OGDEN, 27 February 1814, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[47] Burial of ELIZABETH OGDEN, 23 May 1815, Parish Burial Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[48] Baptism of JEREMIAH OGDEN, 23 May 1815, Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia

[49] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 19 October 1785, trial of CHARLOTTE SPRINGMORE and MARY HARRISON (t17851019-57), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17851019-57, accessed 8 June 2019.

[50] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 19 October 1785, trial of CHARLOTTE SPRINGMORE and MARY HARRISON (t17851019-57), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17851019-57, accessed 8 June 2019.

[51] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 19 October 1785, trial of CHARLOTTE SPRINGMORE and MARY HARRISON (t17851019-57), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17851019-57, accessed 8 June 2019.

[52] Brian Dickey, “Why Were There No Poor Laws in Australia?,” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 4, No. 2, (1992): 111.

[53] Memorial of John Wainwright, New South Wales Government, Copies of letters sent and received, mainly within the colony, or “Document books Nos. 1–3,” Series: 938; Reels: 6016–6017, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia); Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015), p. 30.

[54] Produce received from CHARLOTTE GLOSTER at the Hawkesbury Stores, New South Wales Government, Special Bundles, 1794–1825, Series: 898, Reels: 6020–6040, 6070; Fiche 3260–3312; Page: 7, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[55] Henry Foulton and John MacAvery to Frederick Goulburn, 7 September 1825, New South Wales Government, Main series of letters received, 1788–1825, Series: 897, Reels: 6041–6064, 6071–6072; Page: 76, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[56] New South Wales Government, Reports of Inquests, 1796–1824, Series: NRS 2233; Item: [2/8287]; Roll: 5607, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[57] Although another convict by the name of “William Ogden” had arrived in the colony in 1801 per Earl Cornwallis (1801), he gained a conditional pardon in 1806, obtained permission to leave the colony in December the same year and returned to England per Commerce in early 1807. For the Convict Indent of William Ogden per Earl Cornwallis (1801), see New South Wales Government, Bound manuscript indents, 1788–1842, Series: NRS 12188; Item: [4/4004]; Microfiche: 630, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia). For evidence of his pardon see New South Wales Government, Registers of Conditional Pardons, Series: NRS 1170; Reel: 774; Roll: 1250, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia) and “Classified Advertising. NOTICE,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Sunday 19 June 1803, p. 4. For evidence that he obtained permission and declared his intention to leave the colony per Commerce see “Classified Advertising. Secretary’s Office, Dec. 7, 1806,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Sunday 7 December 1806, p. 2. For evidence of the departure of the Commerce for England see “SYDNEY,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Sunday 8 February 1807, p. 2; Burial of WILLIAM OGDEN [sic: JAMES OGDEN], 19 September 1820, Parish Burial Registers, Textual records, St. John’s Anglican Church Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[58] New South Wales Government, Population musters, Dependent settlements; Series: NRS 1261; Reel: 1254; Record Type: District Constable’s Notebook; Title: Parramatta, 1824, (Book 5), O–S, State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia). The National Archives of the UK, “JAMES OGDON [sic], General Muster, 1822,” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, HO 10; Piece: 36, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[59] John Ramsland, Children of the Back Lanes: Destitute and Neglected Children in Colonial New South Wales (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1986), pp. 3–5; Joy Damousi, Depraved and Disorderly: Female Convicts, Sexuality and Gender in Colonial Australia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 132–33; Dianne Snow, “Gender Relations and the Female Orphan School in Early Nineteenth Century New South Wales,” in Sandra Taylor and Miriam Henry (eds.), Battlers and Bluestockings: Women’s Place in Australian Education, (Canberra: Australian College of Education, 1989), pp. 4–5.

[60] Macquarie quoted in Beryl M. Bubacz, “The Female and Male Orphan Schools in New South Wales, 1801–1850,” (PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2007), p. 123, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2474, accessed 3 July 2019.

[61] Beryl M. Bubacz, “The Female and Male Orphan Schools in New South Wales, 1801–1850,” (PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2007), pp. 125–26, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2474, accessed 3 July 2019.

[62] Anne O’Brien, Philanthropy and Settler Colonialism, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p. 19.

[63] Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015), p. 85.

[64] List of 117 Boys received into the Male Orphan Institution 1818–1824: New South Wales Government, Special Bundles, 1794–1825, Series: NRS 898; Reels: 6020–6040, 6070; Fiche: 3260–3312, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[65] Beryl M. Bubacz, “The Female and Male Orphan Schools in New South Wales, 1801–1850,” (PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2007), pp. 125–26, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2474, accessed 3 July 2019.

[66] Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015), pp. 167–9; DAVID OGDEN, Application for Admission, 6 November 1828 in New South Wales Government, Male Orphan School: Admission Books, 1819–1847, Series: NRS 796; Item: 4/352; Roll: 2777; Page: 5, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[67] SAMUEL OGDEN, Absconder from the Male Orphan Institution, 8 October 1823, New South Wales Government, Special Bundles, 1794–1825, Series: NRS 898; Reels: 6020–6040, 6070; Fiche: 3260–3312; Page: 60, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[68] Barry Bridges, “The Sydney Orphan Schools 1800–1830,” (Masters of Education thesis, University of Sydney, 1973), pp. 281–84, 431–71, 567–80, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7358, accessed 3 July 2019.

[69] Tanya Evans, Fractured Families: Life on the Margins in Colonial New South Wales, (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2015), pp. 146­–47.

[70] DAVID OGDEN, Application for Admission, 6 November 1828 in New South Wales Government, Male Orphan School: Admission Books, 1819–1847, Series: NRS 796; Item: 4/352; Roll: 2777; Page: 5, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[71] Anne O’Brien, Philanthropy and Settler Colonialism, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p. 19. The end of the eighteenth century in England saw increasing dissatisfaction with the Poor Laws, for further information on these debates see Steven King, Poverty and Welfare in England, 1700–1850: A Regional Perspective, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 227; Samantha Williams, “‘A Good Character for Virtue, Sobriety, and Honesty’: Unmarried Mothers’ Petitions to the London Foundling Hospital and the Rhetoric of Need in the Early Nineteenth Century,” in Alysa Levene, Thomas Nutt and Samantha Williams (eds.), Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700–1920, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 90. For the ways in which this debate influenced the development of colonial charities, see Brian Dickey, “Why Were There No Poor Laws in Australia?,” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 4, No. 2, (1992): 118, 130; John Murphy, “The Other Welfare State: Non-Government Agencies and the Mixed Economy of Welfare in Australia,” History Australia, Vol. 3, No. 2, (2006): 44.3; Stephen Garton, Out of Luck: Poor Australians and Social Welfare, 1788–1988, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990).

[72] DAVID OGDEN, Application for Admission, 6 November 1828 in New South Wales Government, Male Orphan School: Admission Books, 1819–1847, Series: NRS 796; Item: 4/352; Roll: 2777; Page: 5, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[73] DAVID OGDEN, Application for Admission, 6 November 1828 in New South Wales Government, Male Orphan School: Admission Books, 1819–1847, Series: NRS 796; Item: 4/352; Roll: 2777; Page: 5, (State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

© Copyright 2019 Caitlin Adams and Michaela Ann Cameron for St. John’s Online