Mary Cavillon: Homemaker, Housebreaker

By Michaela Ann Cameron

Supported by a Create NSW Arts and Cultural Grant – Old Parramattans, Rogues, & Female Factory

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin, “The Old Bailey, Known Also as the Central Criminal Court,” from Rudolph Ackermann, The Microcosm of London: or, London in Miniature, Vol. II, (originally published 1808–1810; republished London: Methuan & Co, 1904), p. 212. Courtesy of University of Toronto via Internet Archive.

On the morning of Wednesday 12 December 1810, ‘the business of the Sessions terminated’ at ‘the Old Bailey,’ London’s Central Criminal Court, and ‘the several convicts were brought up to receive the sentence of the law, incurred by their respective crimes.’[1] The convicts found guilty of capital offences during the Sessions were put to the bar and each asked by Sir John Silvester, the Recorder of London (senior Circuit Judge): ‘Have you anything to say as to why the judgment of death should not be awarded against you?’[2] Thirty-five-year-old Mary Cavillon made no attempt to utter a single word to save herself. In fact, of the other twenty prisoners facing the death penalty alongside her that day, only one man made an appeal against his punishment: forty-two-year-old Ensign John Newball Hepburn, who claimed he had been falsely accused of sodomy with another of the condemned convicts, sixteen-year-old drummer boy Thomas White.[3] Addressing the entire mob of hopeless capital convicts altogether, ‘the Learned Judge’ made ‘a solemn and impressive comment upon the incorrigible depravity which could induce so many persons, in the flower of their youth, in spite of the awful examples which occurred Session after Session, to persist in those crimes which rendered it necessary for public example, and the protection of honest society, to cut them off, by an ignominious death, from the face of the earth,’ then donned the ‘black cap’ and passed the dreadful sentence of death upon them all.[4] Immediately afterwards, just one of the five condemned females ‘pleaded the belly’ (pregnancy) as grounds for a stay of execution—and it was not Mary Cavillon.[5]

Mary and the others would have been whisked off to a holding cell ‘at the top of a staircase, and immediately over the press-room’ in the condemned ward at Newgate.[6] Mary’s mute apathy, as well as that of her fellow capital convicts when given the opportunity to fight for their lives, was likely because they knew all was not yet lost. Their fates would not be sealed until the outcome of The Recorder’s Report to ‘the Hanging Cabinet’ was known, and in those days most death sentences did not end with the death knell ringing at midnight within earshot of a condemned cell at Newgate and a meeting with the hangman on the morrow.[7]

The Prince Regent’s Court

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. “View of the front of Carlton House [also known as Carleton House], on Pall Mall,” artist unknown, (c. 1780–1820), Nn,7.37.1 / 1835,0711.203, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

By late February 1811, the Recorder had prepared his report, and on the 28th proceeded to Carlton House, the extravagant domicile of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent.[8] The Prince Regent was holding a Court and Privy Council of the Hanging Cabinet there to receive the Recorder’s recommendations for the capital convicts from the December and January Sessions.[9] ‘The whole of the trials were read very deliberately and audibly by the Recorder,’ at this meeting, so all the details of Mary Cavillon’s desperate and lowly crime reached the ears of the high and mighty Prince Regent.[10]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Thomas Rowlandson, Wet Under Foot, (No 27 St. James’s Street, London: Hannah Humphrey and Thomas Tegg, 10 February 1812), 1868,0808.7999, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Between two and three o’clock in the afternoon of Wednesday 5 December 1810, the Recorder divulged to the Hanging Cabinet, members of the Dean family had been going about their business in various parts of their St. Giles home.[11] Just outside, Mary took off her pair of pattens (protective overshoes)—she could ill afford to have the clanging of the pattens’ metal rings notifying the occupants of her presence and all she was about to do—and slipped in ‘at the street door,’ which always stood open in the daylight.[12] She then crept upstairs, undetected by any of the occupants, took out a false key, and opened the locked bedroom of the Deans’ son, Joseph, which he shared with a lodger.[13] At once she stripped the bed within and stuffed into a canvas bag the pair of sheets worth 10 s., then helped herself to ‘some dirty things which were laying about the room’ including three shirts worth 5 s., three neck handkerchiefs worth 1 s., a pair of boots, half a crown, a great coat worth 10 s., and Joseph’s hat, which was sitting on the table by the foot of the bed and had a value of 3 s.[14]

Whilst Mary was ransacking Joseph’s bedroom, Joseph was finishing off his dinner in the parlour.[15] He was intending to go out afterwards and, needing his hat for this purpose, took his own key to his bedroom off the nail in the parlour, and began making his way up the stairs to retrieve it.[16] As he ascended the stairs and turned the key, he alerted the thief within, so by the time he unlocked it and sought to enter, he was surprised to encounter resistance from what he had believed to be an empty room: Mary was pushing against the door from inside.[17] Unable to hold her own for long in this battle of strength, Mary dropped the bag, leaving her ‘very dirty’ pattens beside it.[18] She then fled from the room and, in a desperate bid to escape, frantically ran part way up the second flight of stairs then down again in a state of confusion before rushing through the passage and past Mrs. Dean, who called to an old man who also lived on the premises ‘to come and detain’ Mary while Joseph fetched a constable.[19]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Upon being caught in the act of stealing, Mary dropped her bag of stolen items and left her ‘very dirty’ pattens beside it. Pattens (1780–1820), by unknown artist, United Kingdom, B.76:1, 2-1997, © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

The trapped housebreaker ran into the parlour, where Mrs. Dean observed her pull three keys from her pocket and chuck them under the parlour grate.[20] Upon retrieving these keys, Mary Cavillon exclaimed to Mrs. Dean that she was guilty and said, ‘pray do not hurt me,’ but Mrs. Dean made no promises to forgive her and let the matter slide.[21] The constable, William Salmon, searched Mary and found a ‘pipe key’ (a skeleton key) on her person, then tested the three keys she had attempted to discard and established that one of them ‘exactly fitted the lock’ and could therefore successfully lock and unlock Joseph Dean’s room.[22] Although it was possibly in Mary’s favour that she had not actually succeeded in removing the items from the premises, and it was only Joseph’s word that he had seen her with the bag of stolen items in his room, Mary unfortunately confirmed her guilt herself by gruffly telling Constable Salmon as he re-entered the parlour with the bag and pattens he had found beside it, ‘these are my pattens, give them to me.’[23] Worse still, Mary continued to shed further evidence of the full extent of her guilt. When the prisoner was taken to the watchhouse, Mrs. Dean found another ‘ten false keys upon the chair on which she had been sitting, and,’ revealed Mrs. Dean to the court when the case came to trial before Mr. Justice (Sir Nash) Grose, ‘one of them keys opens the front garret door, out of which I was robbed about ten weeks ago.’[24] So, it was not even the first time Mary Cavillon had targeted the Deans. It is likely she had been successfully breaking into and stealing from numerous other properties as well, because after she had been admitted to the watchhouse, Constable Salmon discovered still more ‘small keys’ in Mary’s lodgings.[25]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. A Perspective View of the temporary Gallows in the Old Bailey, [outside the north quad of Newgate Prison], by unknown artist (1794), 1880,1113.4257, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

The Prince Regent heard all this carefully recounted, the two good character references Mary had been given at court, as well as any other extenuating circumstances that may have been relevant when the Recorder made his recommendation for mercy.[26] The result was that His Royal Highness the Prince Regent was ‘graciously pleased to extend his royal mercy unto’ Mary Cavillon and twenty-eight others ‘on condition of their being transported to the coast of New South Wales, for and during the terms against their names expressed.’[27] But, like one ‘Charles Turner’ on the same list who, it was noted, had ‘since been pardoned to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for 6 calendar months,’ Mary Cavillon was also thus pardoned.[28] While the details of Mary’s alternative punishment were not recorded, we know that eight months after her crime, on 10 August 1811, she was set free.[29] Perhaps, like Turner, Mary served out her reduced sentence by performing hard labour at the House of Correction. If she instead remained at Newgate, then she would have been there in some part of the prison, a week after the Hanging Cabinet meeting, when Ensign John Newball Hepburn and the sixteen-year-old drummer boy Thomas White were led out of the condemned cells onto the scaffold, in front of the Debtors’ door at Newgate on Thursday 7 March 1811.[30] There, before ‘an immense concourse of spectators,’ and following prayers as well as Hepburn’s continued ‘very firm and impressive’ declarations of innocence and claims that a key witness had committed perjury, Hepburn and White were hanged for the crime of buggery in a Vere Street ‘molly house.’[31]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. This image is from a later period, but it does give a good indication of the crowds that turned out for public executions outside of Newgate Prison, including that of Hepburn and White, and the general atmosphere of the event as a spectacle or form of entertainment. Preparing for an Execution [Newgate Street, London], by unknown artist, (1846), 1880,1113.4263 / , (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Homemaker

The first thing the eye dwells upon whilst taking a closer, deeper look at the remains of our biographical subject’s life is her Francophonic surname. ‘Cavillon’ (and its variants) is an habitational name, connected to one of two places in France: Cavillon, Somme and Cavillon, Oise.[32] Yet further investigation reveals that Cavillon was not Mary’s maiden name. From the record of her marriage, registered in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, London, Westminster, on 2 December 1792, we learn that she was born ‘Mary Lyon.’[33] ‘Lyon’ may also be of French origin, although it is just as likely to have been Scottish or English; itself a product of the long multicultural history of London ‘the city of nations.’[34] Similarly, there was more than one ‘Mary Lyon’ born in the region of Westminster in the mid-1770s, giving us ‘several’ possible origins for the woman who went on to become the thirty-five-year-old housebreaker, Mary Cavillon.[35]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. A farrier shoeing a horse, by Hendrik Vershuring, (1642–1690), 1946,0713.1038, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

We turn, then, to Mary’s husband, whose name was recorded in the same 1792 marriage record as ‘Nicholas Francis Anthony Cavillon.’ Again, the name ‘Francis’ may be an Anglicised form of François, which is another reference to France; perhaps even ‘Anthony’ was really Antoine. As for ‘Nicholas,’ one need not delve too deeply into facts about the small village of Cavillon, Somme, located roughly twenty-four kilometres northwest of Amiens, to discover that it boasts a stone church called ‘Église Saint-Nicolas.’ We know, too, from a much later record that Mary’s husband’s occupation was a ‘farrier,’ that is one who specialises in equine hoof care; trimming and balancing horses’ hooves, as well as drawing on blacksmithing skills to create metal shoes that are then expertly attached to the hooves, adapting and adjusting them as needed. This occupation fits well with the rural nature of Cavillon, Somme, which to this day remains an area dominated by farms, although it must be said the trade is not associated exclusively with such a location, given that horses were everywhere in this period, including the urban environment of London. The conspicuous absence of Nicholas (and indeed anyone by the name of ‘Cavillon’) in the records prior to his early December 1792 marriage to Mary, however, also points to him having been from ‘elsewhere’ generally and, for reasons that will become clear, probably from Revolutionary France in particular.

While it is possible the Francophonic surname is the result of an earlier migration of French Huguenot refugees to London’s East End, it is the timing of the Lyon-Cavillon marriage, in early December 1792, that may be especially useful to narrowing things down further. In 1789, of course, the Ancien Régime (‘old rule’) of hereditary monarchy and the nobility were overthrown by the French Revolution and replaced with a constitutional monarchy that was meant to benefit what was known as the ‘Third Estate,’ that is the non-elites who made up the majority of France’s population, by providing political equality to working men—including humble farriers in rural villages like Cavillon, Somme. These events led a wave of French elites to voluntarily leave their homeland for London and other places, and they were known as émigrés. In September 1792, the French revolutionaries had achieved their goal with the official replacement of the old regime with the First French Republic but, by then, even many members of the lower classes who were supposed to have benefited from the Revolution were forced to flee their homeland en masse to escape the bloody civil warfare that came with it.[36] In the autumn of 1792 alone, therefore, thousands of such émigrés of lesser means arrived in Britain—just a couple of months before a farrier with a Francophonic name and no previous record in England wed a sixteen-year-old Londoner named Mary Lyon.[37]

In June 1795, the Cavillons’ daughter, Mary, was christened at St. Andrew, Holborn, Camden, London, and the family of three were living on ‘Summer Street’ [sic: Summers Street, Farringdon].[38] In December 1800, a son named ‘Joseph Francis’ had arrived and was christened in the same church, but the family’s residence had changed to Saffron Street, Farringdon, about a four-minute walk from their previous address.[39] Around 1801, another son was born to the couple, and he was the namesake of ‘Nicholas.’[40] Curiously, no record of baby Nicholas’s christening has been found. More curious still, the following year, in December 1802 a Cavillon child, a daughter, was christened in the same church as the first two children, and given the very French and possibly Revolutionary name ‘Victoire,’ with the same residential address recorded (Saffron Street), but the mother’s name was also recorded at the christening as ‘Victoire,’ not Mary.[41] This was either an error on the part of the parish clerk, or the earliest example of the future housebreaker using aliases.[42]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey immortalised their impression of Coldbath Fields Prison in “The Devil’s Thoughts” (1829): “As he went through Cold-Bath Fields he saw / A solitary cell, / And the Devil was pleased, for it gave him a hint / For improving his prisons in Hell.” View of the Entrance Gates to the Prison, or ‘House of Correction’ at Cold Bath Fields, by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd (c.1850), 1880,1113.4848, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Since Mary Cavillon was probably already accustomed to using an alias as early as 1802, we cannot rule out the possibility that she had appeared at the Old Bailey, under an alias, six whole years before she was found guilty of housebreaking and pardoned by the Prince Regent. On 18 September 1804, for example, a twenty-eight-year-old woman calling herself ‘Mary Lyon’ entered three or four different shops in Holborn, in company with another unidentified woman.[43] When the duo came to the shop of linen-drapers Abraham and Basil Francis, they ‘laid hold of…a piece of print on a stool just within the door’ and put it into Mary Lyon’s apron while Abraham Francis was preoccupied with ‘attending a lady at the back part of the shop.’[44] A fellow by the name of William Gear observed the whole thing, grabbed Mary Lyon with the stolen property still on her person, and hauled her into the linen-draper’s shop while her accomplice made a quick escape. Following almost a week in the squalid Newgate Prison, Mary Lyon appeared at the Old Bailey on 24 October 1804, offering as her defence that, ‘Another woman gave it to me to take care of it for her, because her husband was a drunk, and she was afraid he would pawn it and spend the money.’[45] The First Middlesex Jury, before The Recorder, not accepting this version of events, found Mary Lyon guilty and sentenced her to six months in the House of Correction, which at the time was the Coldbath Fields Prison, Clerkenwell (site of the present day London Central Mail Centre, Islington, on the boundary of Camden).[46]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. View of the Prison at Cold Bath Fields, by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd (1814), 1880,1113.4845, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

So was the shoplifter ‘Mary Lyon’ the future housebreaker Mary Cavillon née Lyon? The strongest indication that she might have been is the fact that Mary Lyon was Mary Cavillon’s maiden name. Mary Lyon’s recorded age of twenty-eight likewise agrees with some (not all) of the recorded ages we have for Mary Cavillon, while the location of the shop in ‘Holborn’ was also where at least three of Mary Cavillon’s children had been christened between 1795 and 1802. On the other hand, the 1804 offender’s native place was recorded in the criminal records as ‘Ireland,’ which raises a number of possibilities.[47] It may be that this was merely another piece of false information Mary provided. Or it might mean that Mary Cavillon was never one of the three females coincidentally named ‘Mary Lyon’ who were born in London in the mid-1770s but in fact hailed from Éire (Ireland) all along (no other document for Mary Cavillon née Lyon actually establishes her ‘native place,’ so this is plausible). More simply, the Irish birthplace could be the clearest evidence that the 1804 shoplifter Mary Lyon and the future housebreaker Mary Cavillon were not the same person.

Does a comparison of the criminal offences help to determine whether the same person committed the 1804 and 1810 crimes by uncovering any similarities that might constitute a thief’s ‘signature’? The two women in the 1804 incident were evidently on the prowl, looking for ‘easy pickings,’ which is probably what first caught the attention of Mary Lyon’s vigilant captor William Dean outside the linen-drapers in Holborn, so there was a certain amount of premeditation and coordination between the two thieves. Overall, though, the 1804 offence lacked the sophistication of the housebreaking crime of 1810. In the latter offence, Mary Cavillon had invested considerable time in studying her targets, getting to know their comings and goings, preparing false keys for the multiple locks on their property, and waiting patiently for the most opportune moment to achieve her aims undetected—this strategy had enabled her to successfully steal from the Deans’ garret ten weeks before she hit their residence again. Still, the differences between the 1804 and 1810 crimes may well be evidence of what another six desperate years in an unsavoury neighbourhood, learning the tricks of the trade from more experienced criminals, could do.

One thing in favour of the theory that the 1804 shoplifter and the 1810 housebreaker were the same individual is another parish record for a fifth child apparently bearing the surname ‘Cavillon.’ On 24 April 1805, a parish clerk recorded the details of a ‘Jane Covillon [sic], Inf[an]t, Turnmill Street,’ in the St. James, Clerkenwell, Islington, burial register: she was the first of four infants who passed away in late April 1805 amid the highwaymen and footpads and the countless women turning tricks on Turnmill Street.[48] For Turnmill, ‘one of the most disreputable streets in London,’ was a notorious ‘meat market’ of both the bovine and human varieties (i.e. a brothel area); it harboured thieves and street gangs, and was the scene of bearbaiting, cock-fighting, drinking and gambling.[49] Newspapers of this period describe intoxicated, quarrelsome and violent ‘women of the lowest class’ residing in Turnmill Street and, even as late as the 1870s, could continue to report that the street and its general locality, filled with narrow ‘blind alleys’ with ‘no thoroughfare’ and ‘filthy houses,’ was synonymous with social degradation and deemed ‘not fit for pigs to live in.’[50] Most significantly, Turnmill was only a four-minute walk from the Cavillons’ last known residence, Saffron Street, and about a nine-minute walk from the Coldbath Fields Prison where the shoplifter calling herself ‘Mary Lyon’ had either just completed or was nearing the end of her six-month sentence at the time of Jane Cavillon’s death. Based on all this, it seems late 1804, when Mary Cavillon was already pregnant with her final, doomed child ‘Jane Cavillon,’ may have been when the homemaker’s life took a turn for the worse. The fact that Mary’s husband, Nicholas senior, vanishes from the English records around the same time—just as suddenly as he had appeared in them out of nowhere in late 1792—provides us with good reason to believe that Mary’s life was thrown into turmoil by the loss of the Cavillons’ breadwinner.[51]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. “Turnmill Street,” where Jane Cavillon died in infancy, is depicted in the top left corner. Farringdon, towards the bottom of the image, is where the Cavillons had been living previously on Summers Street and Saffron Street. St. Andrew’s Holborn Parish, where the Cavillon children were baptised, is also mentioned on the far left. Cow Cross being St Sepulchers [sic] Parish without and the Charterhouse, by John Stow, (1720 & 1755), 1880,1113.4100.2, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

In May 1808, another Holborn haberdasher named Mr. Jones was robbed ‘of several pieces of lace’ by a ‘Mary Lyons’ and her accomplice ‘Mary Mayet’ and the pair ‘were fully committed for trial’ at Guildhall.[52] While a lack of any further documents of those criminal proceedings prevents a more thorough evaluation of whether it could have been Mary Cavillon, it is worth bearing in mind that the pithy description of the crime bears all the hallmarks of the 1804 shoplifting offence, if not Cavillon’s confirmed housebreaking escapades.

Wherever Mary Cavillon was in the early 1800s, however early she entered London’s criminal ranks, or even why, what is certain is that she was facing a death sentence at the Old Bailey again, a mere two and a half years after receiving the Prince Regent’s most ‘gracious’ pardon.

‘Them Keys’

On 20 April 1813, Mary chose a barrister’s clerk as her next victim.[53] The clerk, Thomas Lambert, rented lodgings, which he apparently shared with his wife Elizabeth, on the second floor of No. 19, Theobalds Road, Red Lion Square in the parish of St. George the Martyr.[54] While the Lamberts were out, Mary broke in with her bundle of four false keys, two of which opened the door to their apartment. Thomas’s wife Elizabeth had been absent only about twenty minutes and returned between four and five o’clock in the evening, in time to meet ‘the prisoner coming down stairs.’[55] Quickly noting that her door was ajar, she accused Mary of robbing her.[56] When the landlord, William Green, came to Mrs. Lambert’s assistance, Mary reverted to her former ways, running back to the scene of the crime and dropping the stolen items on the floor.[57] All in all, Mary’s abandoned booty contained:

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. “Theobald’s Row, Red Lyon Square [sic].” Detail from John Rocque and John Pine, A Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster, and borough of Southwark, (1746). View the interactive 1746 map and modern GoogleMap via Locating London’s Past (www.locatinglondon.org, version 1.0), accessed 13 January 2021. Courtesy of MOLA/MOTCO.
  • eight shirts, value 21 s.
  • a piece of cloth, value 2 s.
  • two childs [sic] caps, value 25 s.
  • a frill, value 6 d.
  • an ink-stand, value 1 s.
  • a shawl, value 8 s.
  • a gown, value 8 s.
  • an handkerchief, value 8 d.
  • a broach [sic], value 3 s.
  • a silver watch with a gold seal, value £3.[58]

In her defence at the Old Bailey on 2 June 1813, Mary stated, ‘Them keys belong to my own door,’ as if all the witnesses’ accounts of her being caught in the act of absconding from the Lamberts’ residence with a pile of their property were worthless. [59]

So similar was Mary Cavillon’s final offence on English soil to her 1810 offence, that the details of the crime are not even the most interesting information gleaned from the transcript of her trial: of far greater interest is the fact that Mary Cavillon, who was well equipped with her bundles of false keys, was equally well appointed with false names. In this instance, she was ‘Isabella Phillips.’ And just to really throw them off the scent, she even supplied an alias to her alias! ‘Isabella Phillips alias Elizabeth Phillips.’[60] She did so, no doubt, because as an old hand at this game, she knew her crime of stealing property over the value of 40 shillings would automatically attract the death penalty and she would once again be considered by The Hanging Cabinet for a reduction in her sentence; something she could hardly expect to secure if she appeared under the same name of ‘Mary Cavillon,’ having committed an identical crime to the one for which she had already been pardoned. Isabella Phillips alias Elizabeth might get away with what Mary Cavillon no longer could, though, so the quick-thinking thief provided the false names the second she was arrested. Unlike her previous trial in 1810, no witnesses appeared to attest to her ‘good character,’ probably because she was using a false identity, so this lack of endorsement would also be against her this time around.[61] The death sentence came, as she knew it would, but in mid-July 1813 so did the Prince Regent’s clemency.[62]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. View of the inside of Newgate, (Liverpool: Nuttall, Fisher & Co, 1809), 1880,1113.4261, (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), © The Trustees of the British Museum.

Isabella Phillips alias Elizabeth, alias Victoire, alias Mary Lyon, alias Mary Cavillon, was to be transported to the Colony of New South Wales for life instead and, until then, would remain in Newgate Prison. On 22 February 1814, ten months after her arrest, she set sail per the all-female prison ship Broxbornebury (1814); by then, her eldest daughter and namesake, Mary, was around eighteen years old, and by early May the following year had married John Hawker Treble at St. James, Piccadilly.[63] The Cavillons’ eldest son, Joseph Francis, was fourteen, and would go on to become a mariner and a freemason.[64] Victoire, the youngest surviving child, was around eleven years old in 1814, and would marry young, at the age of fifteen, in December 1817 at St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Westminster.[65] Only Nicholas junior, roughly twelve years old, joined his mother aboard the convict ship Broxbornebury (1814), albeit as one of the ship’s few free passengers.[66] Also among the free people on board were the convict architect Francis Greenway’s wife and three sons.[67] Greenway would go on to design the first purpose-built Female Factory at North Parramatta, Burramattagal Country, a more spacious barracks for the female convicts that was sorely needed, as Mary Cavillon (and potentially even Nicholas) would soon find out the hard way.

The Female Factory

The Broxbornebury (1814) arrived at Warrane (Sydney Cove), Cadigal Country, on 28 July 1814, the same day as its all-male counterpart, the fever-ridden convict ship Surrey I (1) (1814). There are no records documenting Mary Cavillon’s precise movements directly after she arrived in the colony under her assumed name ‘Isabella Phillips.’ However, the first Parramatta Female Factory, known as the ‘Factory Above the Gaol,’ for which there are only fragmented and dispersed sources, was a common destination point for newly arrived female convicts in this period, especially those with children, as they were employed there in the production of wool and linen until they were either assigned or married to an eligible settler.[68] Surviving evidence indicating a high number of Mary’s other shipmates were attached to the factory also increases the likelihood that, on arrival, a large portion if not all of the Broxbornebury’s prisoners were sent upriver to what the Principal Chaplain Reverend Samuel Marsden considered the ‘grand source of all moral corruption, insubordination, and disease,’ which ‘spread…its pestilential influence throughout the most remote parts of the colony’: the ‘Government Factory.’[69]

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. An early incarnation of Parramatta Gaol is depicted to the right, at the end of the “Old Gaol Bridge” across the Parramatta River, a bridge that was later partially incorporated into the Lennox Bridge. At the time, the first Parramatta Female Factory, known as “The Factory Above the Gaol,” was also part of the same complex. “A View of Part of Parramatta Port Jackson,” c.1809, attributed to George William Evans. Series 01: Australian paintings by J.W. Lewin, G. P. Harris, G. W. Evans and others, 1796–1809 [32 watercolours], Vol. 3, PXD 388 / FL1152086, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.

In all probability, therefore, Mary Cavillon and her twelve-year-old son Nicholas were still among the crowd of women and children noted as being employed in the factory almost a year to the day since the Broxbornebury delivered them to the colony.[70] At the time, Francis Oakes was the superintendent of the factory, with 33 men employed there and 150 women who, according to Marsden, were ‘the most infamous and abandoned characters, composed of the very dregs of the whole colony…a terror to the better part of society.’[71] The children of the factory then numbered 70, and while we do not know the average age of those children in this earlier period of the institution, as there was not yet a Male Orphan School it is likely that even at age twelve or thirteen Nicholas junior was part of the factory population and put to good use, especially since men were employed there in various roles as well.[72]

There was ‘not any room in the factory that c[ould] be called a bed-room,’ or any cradles or bedsteads, so only approximately 30 women and children combined could be accommodated on the factory floor with ‘little’ or ‘no bedding’ at all each night.[73] These ones with no choice but to take up the factory floor each night were usually the women who had been confined there as a punishment for secondary offences, and only a very small fraction of the total number of children Marsden quoted therefore could have possibly slept there. With no accommodation whatsoever provided for the remainder of the women and children, after a full day’s labour spinning wool and carding in the cramped factory, most of them were simply turned loose and, thus, ‘spread themselves through all the town and neighbourhood of Paramatta [sic].’[74] It is all but certain, then, that Mary Cavillon and her son Nicholas were among those who were obliged to get by in the town most nights. Marsden did not mince his words about what getting by entailed:

[S]ome of the [women] are glad to cohabit with any poor wretched man who can give them shelter for the night…[M]any of these females pay four shillings a week for their lodging and fire. Few of them have any means, excepting prostitution, to obtain this sum, and hence the male convicts weekly rob and plunder either Government, or private individuals, to supply the urgent wants of the females who are devoted to their pleasures. If this were not the case, the females would be left entirely destitute.[75]

Such ‘extensive illicit commerce carried on under these circumstances between the male and female convicts,’ railed Marsden, ‘is destructive of all religion, morality and good order, and destroys at once the most distant hope of any reformation being produced in either.’[76] If things were this tough for the single female convicts who swarmed out of the factory each night, then it could only have been that much harder for Mary Cavillon if she had her twelve-year-old son by her side. Unfortunately, the lack of a ‘settled residence’ also made the factory women and children vulnerable to having their weekly ration stolen, leaving many of them with ‘nothing to eat for two or three days towards the latter end of the week,’ and compelled by their hunger pains ‘to steal or to do things worse.’[77] Not surprisingly, on a young boy of twelve or thirteen, these experiences left a permanent, ugly mark.[78]

Marsden’s descriptions of the inadequate factory, the various social evils it caused, and his call for the Government to provide accommodation for the female convicts, eventually had their effect. Governor Macquarie set the convict architect Francis Greenway to work on designing a purpose-built factory and barracks for female convicts, and by July 1818, the foundation stone was laid on four acres of land on the left bank of the Parramatta River in North Parramatta, Burramattagal Country.[79] Its construction, largely the result of convict labour, would continue for the next two and a half years.

In the meantime, it seems Mary was probably one of the ‘incorrigible’ women who refused to ‘quietly go into the service of’ even ‘the most respectable family in the colony,’ instead ‘refus[ing]…in the most open and positive manner…to obey his orders.’ For while there would be brief periods of respite from the Factory Above the Gaol, during which Mary was apparently employed somewhere ‘in the colony’ as a nurse, returned to the factory in 1816, and was then an assigned housekeeper in 1817, by 1820, she was again drawn back to the factory.[80] She remained a part of its world of abandoned women who would ‘sooner live upon bread and water in a solitary cell, than leave Paramatta [sic], the scene of their sensual gratifications, till they weary out, by length of time, the patience of the magistrate.’[81]

As Mary toiled at the old factory on 27 January 1821, Macquarie’s vice-regal secretary, John Thomas Campbell, penned the following announcement from Government House, Cadi (Sydney):

GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL ORDERS, GOVERNMENT HOUSE, SYDNEY, 27th JAN. 1821. CIVIL DEPARTMENT,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW: 1803 – 1842), Saturday 27 January 1821, p. 1.

Since Mary Cavillon was mustered at the old factory in 1820, and at the new factory in 1821, there is a strong case for her having been among the first convict women to pass through the new factory’s gates in February 1821.[82]

The ‘New Factory’ was a ‘three storey…Large Commodious handsome stone built Barrack and Factory,’ capable of accommodating 300 Female Convicts.[83] At first, for Mary and others who had endured the tiny, makeshift Factory Above the Gaol for years, the ‘New Factory’ at North Parramatta, Burramattagal Country, must have seemed luxurious by comparison. No more would Mary shoulder the full responsibility of finding a place to rest her head each night, and there were now rooms dedicated to specific tasks: ‘Carding, Weaving and Loom Rooms, Work-Shops,’ and even ‘Stores for Wool, Flax, etc.’[84] There was ‘a large Kitchen Garden for the use of the Female Convicts, and Bleaching Ground for Bleaching the Cloth and Linen Manufactured.’[85] Nevertheless, the increased space gave the authorities an overwhelming urge to fill it up with still more convict women cast out of their native lands, so the old problem of overcrowding would simply be realised on a larger scale. Whether or not Mary Cavillon was at the New Factory long enough to experience that firsthand is unknown, for by 1822, the year after her transfer from the old factory to the new, she had been assigned to a free settler once more.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Augustus Earle, Female Penitentiary or Factory, Parramata [i.e. Parramatta], N.S. Wales [picture], PIC Solander Box A33 #T85 NK12/47 / nla.obj-134500491, Courtesy of National Library of Australia via Trove.

Her Son and Master

The free settler Mary Cavillon now called ‘Master’ was her own son. Twenty-one-year-old Nicholas was a baker by trade, and had been assigned his mother as his government servant.[86] This living and working arrangement was still in place in 1825 when Mary was mustered as a ‘Widow, Parramatta,’ and again when the New South Wales Census was taken in 1828. Samuel Burr per Earl St. Vincent (2) (1820), another Londoner and ‘lifer,’ was also assigned to Nicholas at the time of the census.[87] In all of these documents Mary continued to be recorded as ‘Isabella Phillips, Broxbornebury.’

There is little left that provides much insight into Mary’s latter years, but one wonders how the mother and son navigated their way through this role reversal. Her convict status meant she would have been expected to work for him, just as any convict assigned to him was required to do, so she may have been set to general domestic tasks or could have even worked in his bakery. The notion that Mary worked in her son’s bakery, willingly or otherwise, is particularly interesting when we consider that in 1830, perhaps as a direct result of an association with the Female Factory in its early years above the gaol, Nicholas’s tenders to supply ‘Wheaten Bread’ and ‘Maize Bread…for Prisoners in and out of Barracks, and Female Factory,’ were accepted by the government.[88] At roughly fifty-four years of age, therefore, notwithstanding any health issues that might have prevented her, Mary Cavillon probably participated in making bread for the very community of hungry ‘abandoned’ women to which she had formerly belonged at North Parramatta. Did she count her blessings as she kneaded and shaped the dough, and picture those ‘immured in the factory’s drear halls’ filling their empty bellies with the bread she was helping to make with her own hands?[89]

It is hard to say for sure whether Mary would have considered her life with Nicholas a vast improvement from the factory, for at some point Nicholas (rather infamously) began to abuse alcohol and was often physically violent towards his wife, Milbah Harrax, while ‘in liquor.’[90] This violence was considered extreme, even in the penal colony, which raises the question of whether he might have subjected his mother to similar treatment in the eight years or so prior to his marriage. If Mary Cavillon did experience any abuse at the hands of her son, there is no trace of it in the written record, so perhaps it was his poor wife Milbah who put up with this treatment exclusively, which still leaves open the possibility that Mary witnessed her son severely mistreating his wife. Ill-fated as that marriage turned out to be, the wedding of Nicholas and Milbah at St. John’s Church, Parramatta, Burramattagal Country, on 10 March 1829 was the only opportunity Mary Cavillon ever had to see one of her children wed.[91] She would also experience being a grandmother to her son’s first child, Mary Ann, born 29 May 1830, but would not live long enough to see the birth of his second daughter, Victoria.[92]

On 1 June 1832, death released the housebreaker from her life sentence.[93] She may have been about fifty-six years old (although her headstone does state that she was sixty-one), her cause of death was not recorded. And while much of her relationship with Nicholas when he reached adulthood and became her master is unknowable, this much is true: he was the only one of her children who accompanied her to the penal colony where, despite arriving free, he would have endured many of the hardships his mother’s crimes had wrought, right alongside her. When he was able, he got her out of the factory. When she died and was buried at St. John’s Cemetery, he supplied her with a headstone bearing not her convict-stained alias ‘Isabella Phillips’ by which she was officially known here, but by her true name, ‘Mary Cavillon.’[94] And when he passed away, he was buried with her in the same grave.[95]

The grave of Mary Cavillon and her son Nicholas Cavillon, Section 3, Row G, No. 15, St. John’s Cemetery, Parramatta. Photo: Michaela Ann Cameron (November 2019).

In her own day, Mary Cavillon’s story was not considered particularly significant. Court reporters simply lumped her crime of housebreaking and her death sentence together with those meted out to the majority of prisoners facing judgement alongside her in the Old Bailey’s December and January Sessions, so they could devote the majority of their column inches to what they referred to as Hepburn and White’s ‘abominable,’ ‘unnatural’ and  ‘detestable crime’ of homosexuality.[96] To this day, the latter case remains a significant one in gay history, and rightly so. Mary’s case, by contrast, was all too common to be anything historically or legally exceptional and noteworthy then and, to some extent, this is still true; there are, after all, countless stories of women in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in the worst of circumstances and driven to break the law, not only to keep themselves alive but typically also to support a number of dependents. In some ways, the value and significance of such ‘common’ cases can be best showcased when they are depersonalised through quantification and collectively presented as a statistical dataset rather than as emotional, individual narratives, since such narratives inevitably end up having little to differentiate them from one another.

Yet a second, deeper look at the fragments of evidence that remain of Mary Cavillon’s life has revealed what is perhaps a less expected, if not entirely uncommon, story of members of London’s poor in the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth centuries. For the evidence hints at a life shaped by the French Revolution through her marriage to what appears to have been a French émigré, at the very height of the mass exodus of French people to the ethnically diverse London metropolis. While Mary’s London life thereafter provides a familiar tale of what became of working women with a number of dependents following the loss of their breadwinner (whatever the circumstances), and Mary’s colonial life again tells a common enough tale it, too, ends up offering some surprising facts that, overall, make her case rather outstanding.[97] With incomplete and dispersed data regarding the inmates of the Parramatta factories in its earliest years in particular, being able to determine that Mary had been part of this institution at both of its locations, and was probably even among the first to enter its gates when its first purpose-built factory opened at North Parramatta, Burramattagal Country, sets her apart from the majority of the thousands of women who were incarcerated in either the first or second Parramatta Female Factory over the decades. When we combine these facts with the knowledge that Mary Cavillon is also one of the even smaller minority of Female Factory convicts who have extant headstones—or, indeed, ever had one at all—suddenly the homemaker and housebreaker who appeared to be ‘just another statistic,’ proves to be a true rarity.

Find out what became of Mary’s son Nicholas Cavillon after her death in “A Hardened Villain.”

CITE THIS

Michaela Ann Cameron, “Mary Cavillon: Homemaker, Housebreaker, St. John’s Online, (2021), https://stjohnsonline.org/bio/mary-cavillon, accessed [insert current date]

Further Reading

Michaela Ann Cameron, “Nicholas Cavillon: A Hardened Villain,” St. John’s Online (2021).

References

Primary Sources and Online Databases

  • Church of England Parish Registers, 1538–1812, (London Metropolitan Archives; London, England).
  • Charles Dickens, “A Visit to Newgate,” Sketches by Boz, (193 Piccadilly, London: Chapman and Hall, 1854).
  • Lachlan Macquarie, “Appendix to the Report of Major General Lachlan Macquarie, late Governor of the Colony of New South Wales, being A List and Schedule of Public Buildings and Works erected and other useful Improvements, made in the Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies, at the expence [sic] of the Crown from the 1st of January, 1810, to the 30th of November, 1821,” 30 November 1822, ‘Enclosure marked A,’ in J. T. Bigge, Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales, (New South Wales: House of Commons, 1822) accessed 24 June 2015.
  • Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), pp. 79–83. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZCRDAAAAcAAJ&vq=%22oakes%22&pg=RA3-PA79#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).
  • Home Office: Criminal Registers, Middlesex and Home Office: Criminal Registers, England and Wales; Records created or inherited by the Home Office, Ministry of Home Security, and related bodies, Class: HO 26, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).
  • New South Wales Government, 1828 Census: Householders’ Returns [Population and Statistics, Musters and Census Records, Census, Colonial Secretary], Series: NRS 1273; Reel: 2507, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).
  • New South Wales Government, Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages (https://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/), (Chippendale NSW: NSW BDM, 2019), https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?2, accessed 3 November 2019.
  • Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 24 October 1804, trial of MARY LYON (t18041024-12).
  • Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33).
  • Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100).
  • Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Parish Burial Records, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Parish Marriage Records, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.
  • The British Newspaper Archive (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/, 2020).
  • The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1).
  • Westminster Church of England Parish Registers, City of Westminster Archives Centre; London, England.

Secondary Sources

NOTES

[1] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2.

[2] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2.

[3] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2.

[4] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2; Home Office: Criminal Registers, Middlesex and Home Office: Criminal Registers, England and Wales; Records created or inherited by the Home Office, Ministry of Home Security, and related bodies, Class: HO 26; Piece: 16; Page: 20, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[5] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2. For more on ‘pleading the belly’ see Richard Ward et. al, “Execution,” The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1), https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Execution, accessed 3 November 2019.

[6] Charles Dickens, “A Visit to Newgate,” Sketches by Boz, (193 Piccadilly, London: Chapman and Hall, 1854), pp. 122–30, especially pp. 127–8.

[7] See Richard Ward et. al, “Sentencing,” The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1), https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Sentencing, accessed 3 November 2019 and Richard Ward et. al, “Pardoning,” The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1), https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Pardoning, accessed 3 November 2019.

[8] “The Prince Regent’s Court,” The Globe, 1 March 1811, p. 3.

[9] “The Prince Regent’s Court,” The Globe, 1 March 1811, p. 3.

[10] “The Prince Regent’s Court,” The Globe, 1 March 1811, p. 3.

[11] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[12] Regarding pattens see “Pattens (1780–1820),” by unknown artist, United Kingdom, B.76:1, 2-1997, Victoria and Albert Museum, https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O38921/pattens-unknown/, accessed 3 November 2019; “Pair of Pattens,” by unknown artist, French, early nineteenth century, 44.571a-b, Museum of Fine Arts Boston https://collections.mfa.org/objects/122166, accessed 3 November 2019; “Pattens, late 18th century, American,” 2009.300.1640a, b, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/156377, accessed 3 November 2019; Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[13] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[14] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[15] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[16] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[17] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[18] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[19] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[20] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[21] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[22] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[23] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[24] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[25] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[26] The trial transcript mentions the two good character references Mary Cavillon was given at her trial. Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 5 December 1810, trial of MARY CAVILLON (t18101205-33), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18101205-33, accessed 3 November 2019.

[27] The National Archives, HO 77: Newgate Prison Calendar; Piece Number: 18, (The National Archives, Kew, Surrey, England); “The Prince Regent’s Court,” The Globe, 1 March 1811, p. 3.

[28] The word ‘pardoned’ is written in ink beside Mary’s name, although the details of her reduced sentence were not logged: see, The National Archives, HO 77: Newgate Prison Calendar; Piece Number: 18, (The National Archives, Kew, Surrey, England).

[29] The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1), MARY CAVILLON Life Archive (ID: obpt18101205-33-defend335), https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/life?id=obpt18101205-33-defend335, accessed 3 November 2019.

[30] For the precise location of the scaffold, see “Execution,” Evening Mail, 8 March 1811, p. 4. For the direct quotation regarding Hepburn’s “firm and impressive” statements see “Execution,” Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, 8 March 1811, p. 3.

[31] Saint James Chronicle, 7 March 1811, p. 4; Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, 8 March 1811, p. 3. “EXECUTION. Yesterday J. N. Hepburn, late an Ensign in a Veteran Battalion, and Thomas White, late a drum-boy in the Guards, were executed in the Old Bailey, pursuant to their sentence in December Sessions, for a crime of the most revolting nature. Hepburn was 42 years of age, and White 17. White came out first; he seemed perfectly indifferent at his awful fate, and continued adjusting the frill of his shirt while he was viewing the surrounding populace. About two minutes after Hepburn made his appearance, but was immediately surrounded by the Clergyman, Jack Ketch, his man, and others in attendance. The Executioner at the same time put the cap over Hepburn’s face, which of course prevented the people from having a view of him. White seemed to fix his eyes repeatedly on Hepburn. After a few minutes prayer, the miserable wretches were launched into eternity. Hepburn spoke to the Sheriff in a very firm and impressive manner, stating that the person who had sworn against him had perjured himself, and that every iota that he, Hepburn, had said, to prove the perjury, was perfectly correct. The Duke of Cumberland, Lord Sefton, Lord Yarmouth, and several other Noblemen, were in the Press Yard.” Regarding the slang term see ‘molly house‘ in Jonathan Green, Green’s Dictionary of Slang, (2019), https://greensdictofslang.com/entry/n4njdzi#3sjjroa, accessed 3 November 2019.

[32] “Couvillon,” in Patrick Hanks (ed.), Dictionary of American Family Names, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 377.

[33] “Marriage of MARY LYON and NICHOLAS FRANCIS ANTHONY CAVILLON, 2 December 1792, St. Martin-In-The-Fields, London, Westminster, England,” Westminster Church of England Parish Registers, Reference: STJ/PR/6/14, City of Westminster Archives Centre; London, England.

[34] “Lyon,” in Patrick Hanks (ed.), Dictionary of American Family Names, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 479; Martyn Cormick, “Introduction. The French in London: A Study in Time and Space,” in Debra Kelly and Martyn Cormick (eds.), A History of the French in London: Liberty, Equality, Opportunity, (London: University of London, School of Advanced Study, Institute of Historical Research, 2013), p. 1.

[35] Mary Lyon, later Mary Cavillon, therefore may have been the daughter of Abraham Lyon and his wife Rebecca Hooper, born 17 March 1776 and baptised at St James, Picadilly, Westminster on 8 April 1776; alternatively, she may have been the daughter of a couple named Elizabeth and James Lyon, born on 17 November 1776 and baptised at St. Michael Queenhithe, London on 15 December 1776; or even the daughter of William and Sarah Lyon, born 1 December 1778 and baptised at St. Anne Soho, Westminster on 16 December 1778. See Westminster, Anglican Parish Registers, City of Westminster Archives, Westminster, London, England.

[36] Giulia Pacini, “The French Emigrés in Europe and the Struggle against Revolution, 1789–1814 (review),” French Forum, Vol. 26, No. 2, (Spring, 2001): 113–115 doi:10.1353/frf.2001.0020

[37] Giulia Pacini, “The French Emigrés in Europe and the Struggle against Revolution, 1789–1814 (review),” French Forum, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Spring, 2001): 113–115, doi:10.1353/frf.2001.0020; “Marriage of MARY LYON and NICHOLAS FRANCIS ANTHONY CAVILLON, 2 December 1792, St. Martin-In-The-Fields, London, Westminster, England,” Westminster Church of England Parish Registers, Reference: STJ/PR/6/14, City of Westminster Archives Centre; London, England. 

[38] “Christening of MARY CAVILLON, St Andrew, Holborn, Camden, London, England, 14 June 1795,” Church of England Parish Registers, 1538–1812, Reference Number: P82/AND/A/001/MS06667/014, (London Metropolitan Archives; London, England). Full transcript: “Christenings of June 1795, Mary Daugtr of Nicholas & Mary Cavillon Summer Street, 14 [June 1795].”

[39] “Christening of JOSEPH FRANCIS CAVILLON, St Andrew, Holborn, Camden, London, England, 25 December 1800,” Church of England Parish Registers, 1538–1812, Reference Number: P82/AND/A/001/MS06667/014, (London Metropolitan Archives; London, England). Full transcript: “Christenings in December 1800, Joseph Francis Son of Nicholas Francis Anthony Cavillon & Mary, Saffron Street, 25 [December 1800].”

[40] Nicholas’s approximate year of birth is from colonial sources including the 1828 New South Wales Census and his death certificate. New South Wales Government, 1828 Census: Householders’ Returns [Population and Statistics, Musters and Census Records, Census, Colonial Secretary], Series: NRS 1273; Reel: 2507, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia). Information from Nicholas’s death certificate was sourced from Marilyn Rowan, “NICHOLAS CAVILLON NSW Death Registration Transcription,” NSW Births Deaths and Marriages, (transcriptions.com.au, 12 June 2010), Ref No: 1509066. See also New South Wales Government, Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages (https://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/), Burial of NICHOLAS CAVILLON, Parramatta, New South Wales, 1869, Registration No. 5447/1869, (Chippendale NSW: NSW BDM, 2020), https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?2, accessed 3 November 2019.

[41] “Christening of VICTOIRE CAVILLON, St Andrew, Holborn, Camden, London, England, 25 December 1802,” Church of England Parish Registers, 1538–1812, Reference Number: P82/AND/A/001/MS06667/014, (London Metropolitan Archives; London, England). Full transcript: “Christenings in December 1802, Victoire, Daugtr of Nicholas & Victoire Cavillon, Saffron Street, 25 [December 1802].”

[42] A third possibility, that Victoire Cavillon was another woman entirely, seems unlikely when we consider that Mary’s son Nicholas junior would later name all of his children after his siblings and himself: Mary Ann, Victoria, Joseph, Nicholas and Frances Sarah Jane (the latter being a commemoration of his sister Jane, who died in 1805, as well as a namesake for Milbah’s deceased mother Frances Sarah Harrex née Taber).

[43] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 24 October 1804, trial of MARY LYON (t18041024-12), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18041024-12, accessed 3 November 2019.

[44] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 24 October 1804, trial of MARY LYON (t18041024-12), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18041024-12, accessed 3 November 2019.

[45] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 24 October 1804, trial of MARY LYON (t18041024-12), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18041024-12, accessed 3 November 2019.

[46] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 24 October 1804, trial of MARY LYON (t18041024-12), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18041024-12, accessed 3 November 2019.

[47] Home Office: Criminal Registers, Middlesex and Home Office: Criminal Registers, England and Wales; Records created or inherited by the Home Office, Ministry of Home Security, and related bodies, Class: HO 26; Piece: 10; Page: 62, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[48] “Burial of JANE COVILLON [sic], 24 April 1805, Turnmill Street, St. James, Clerkenwell, Islington,” Church of England Parish Registers, 1538–1812, Reference Number: P76/JS1/067, London, England: London Metropolitan Archives.

[49]Cowcross Street and Turnmill Street,” in Philip Temple (ed.), Survey of London: Volume 46, South and East Clerkenwell, (London: London City Council, 2008), pp. 182–202, accessed online British History Online, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol46/pp182-202, 3 November 2019; Jonathan Green, “The Slang Guide to London: Turnmill Street, EC1,” The Dabbler, (2011), http://thedabbler.co.uk/2011/06/the-slang-guide-to-london-turnmill-street-ec1/, accessed 3 November 2019.

[50] “London,” Saint James’s Chronicle, 28 April 1807, p. 3; “A Visit to Turnmill-Street,” Islington Gazette, 22 August 1873, p. 3.

[51] No burial record has been located for Nicholas Francis Anthony Cavillon yet, but years later, in the colony of New South Wales, Mary did declare herself to be a widow. Even then, the fact of her widowhood at that late stage does not automatically mean Nicholas senior died around 1804 and this was the cause of Mary’s criminal life, it merely strengthens the theory that it might have all played out this way.

[52] “GUILDHALL. Yesterday Mary Mayet and Mary Lyons were charged with robbing the shop of Mr. Jones, haberdasher, in Holborn, of several pieces of lace. They were fully committed for trial.” “GUILDHALL,” Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, 18 May 1808, p. 2.

[53] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[54] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[55] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[56] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[57] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[58] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[59] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[60] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019. There are a number of Old Bailey trial transcripts from the period of Mary Cavillon’s criminal activities under the name “Elizabeth Phillips.” While there is probably no way to determine whether it was the same person in those instances, due to the fact that the individual involved was not found guilty and so we cannot uncover more records that allow us to cross-reference and see if she might have been Mary Cavillon, they are interesting to look at and consider the possibility that these were part of Mary’s rap sheet. The fact that the allegations feature a person named Elizabeth Phillips in league with other women in Holborn is, after all, reminiscent of the offender named “Mary Lyon” who stole print from the linen-draper in league with another woman in Holborn. See for instance: Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 3 December 1806, trial of ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18061203-21), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18061203-21, accessed 3 November 2019; Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 14 January 1807, trial of ELIZABETH CLARKE (t18070114-1), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18070114-1, accessed 3 November 2019; Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 13 May 1812, trial of MARY EDWARDS and ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18120513-9), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18120513-9, accessed 3 November 2019.

[61] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 2 June 1813, trial of ISABELLA, alias ELIZABETH PHILLIPS (t18130602-100), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18130602-100, accessed 3 November 2019.

[62] Star (London), 24 July 1813, p. 4. Based on the newspaper report, the commutation of Mary’s death sentence to transportation for life probably happened when the Recorder made his report to the Prince Regent on Friday 23 July 1813. However, The Digital Panopticon’s Life Archive for “Isabella Phillips alias Elizabeth” logs 15 July 1813 as the date upon which her sentence of transportation for life was received: see The Digital Panopticon (www.digitalpanopticon.org, version 1.2.1), Isabella Phillips Life Archive, (ID: obpt18130602-100-defend939), https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/life?id=obpt18130602-100-defend939, accessed 3 November 2019. Due to this discrepancy, I have simply opted for ‘mid-July’ as the time frame for the sentence reduction.

[63] “Marriage of MARY CAVILLON and JOHN HAWKER TREBLE, 8 May 1815, St. James, Piccadilly, St. James, Westminster, London, Westminster, England,” Westminster, Anglican Parish Registers, Reference Number: STG/PR/7/86, City of Westminster Archives, Westminster, London, England.

[64] “JOSEPH CAVILLON, 4 August 1821, Entry Books of Certificates: 1840 May – 1841 Feb,” UK Naval Officer and Rating Service Records. Admiralty: Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Coastguard and related services: Officers’ and Ratings’ Service Records (Series II), Class: ADM 29; Piece Number: 26, (The National Archives, Kew, England); “JOSEPH CAVILLON, Age 50; Admission Date: 22 November 1845; Admission Place: London, England,” Dreadnought Seamen’s Hospital Admission Registers, Reference Number: DSH/9, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England; “JOSEPH CAVILLON, Age 54; Greenwich Hospital, Kent, England, Pensioner, Boarder, 1851,” Census Returns of England and Wales, 1851, Class: HO107; Piece: 1587; Folio: 452; Page: 25; GSU Roll: 174824, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Public Record Office (PRO), Kew, Surrey, England); Regarding his membership in the Freemasons as well as further evidence of his occupation: “JOSEPH CAVILLON, Initiation Date: 28; Profession: Mariner; Year Range: 1813–1836; Lodge: Lodge of Friendship; Lodge Location: Plymouth Dock,” Membership Registers 1751–1921 from the collection of the United Grand Lodge of England held by the Museum of Freemasonry, Folio Number: 90; A Lodge Number: 339A; B Lodge Number: 238B, (Library and Museum of Freemasonry, London, England). For Joseph’s burial see “JOSEPH CAVILLION [sic], Death Age: 53; Burial Date: 4 March 1853; Burial Place: Greenwich, Kent, England; Denomination: Anglican,” General Register Office: Registers of Births, Marriages and Deaths surrendered to the Non-Parochial Registers Commissions of 1837 and 1857, Records of the General Register Office, Government Social Survey Department, and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Registrar General (RG) 4, Class Number: RG 4; Piece Number: 1675, (The National Archives, Kew, Surrey, England).

[65] “Marriage of VICTORIA CAVILLON and HENRY RICHARD HALLAM, Marriage Date: 15 December 1817; Marriage Place: St. Martin-In-The-Fields, London, Westminster, England,” Westminster, Anglican Parish Registers, Reference Number: STG/PR/7/86, City of Westminster Archives, Westminster, London, England.

[66] New South Wales Government, 1828 Census: Householders’ Returns [Population and Statistics, Musters and Census Records, Census, Colonial Secretary], Series: NRS 1273; Reel: 2507, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[67] Mary Greenway (née Moore) and the three children arrived as free passengers per Broxbornebury (1814). See Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, HO10; Pieces 21–28, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[68] Carol Liston, “Convict Women in the Female Factories of New South Wales,” in Gay Hendriksen, Trudy Cowley, and Carol Liston, Women Transported: Life in Australia’s Convict Female Factories, (Parramatta, N.S.W: Parramatta City Council Heritage Centre, 2008); Michaela Ann Cameron, “The Factory Above the Gaol: Australia’s First Female Factory,” Female Factory Online (2018), https://femalefactoryonline.org/about/history/the-factory-above-the-gaol/, accessed 3 November 2019.

[69] A petition submitted by Mary Cavillon’s shipmate, Mary Smith, to Governor Macquarie for a Ticket of Leave reinforces this line of reasoning. In the petition, Mary Smith states: “The humble Memorial of Mary Smith Most Respectfully Sets forth: That your Excellencys [sic] Memorialist arrived in this Colony a Prisoner in the Ship Broxbournbury [sic] and since that time has been employed in the Parramatta Factory.” See “MARY SMITH, 7 August 1815,” New South Wales Government, Petitions to the Governor from Convicts for Mitigation of Sentences, 1810–25, Series: NRS 900; Fiche: 3163–3253; Page: 33, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia). For the direct quotation describing the factory, see Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[70] Marsden supplied Factory statistics for 1815 in Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[71] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), pp. 80, 82.

[72] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[73] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[74] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[75] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), pp. 80–2.

[76] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 81.

[77] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 81.

[78] See Michaela Ann Cameron, “Nicholas Cavillon: A Hardened Villain,” St. John’s Online, (2020), https://stjohnsonline.org/bio/nicholas-cavillon, accessed 3 November 2019.

[79] Michaela Ann Cameron, “Parramatta Female Factory, 1821–1848,” Female Factory Online (2016) https://femalefactoryonline.org/about/history/parramatta-female-factory, accessed 3 November 2019.

[80] Neither a date nor a specific location is provided when she was mustered as a “nurse.” See “ISABELLA PHILLIPS per Broxbornebury, Nurse, In the Colony, [no date],” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania; Class: HO10, Piece: 2, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England). In 1816, Mary Cavillon was back in the factory, see: “ISABELLA PHILLIPS per Broxbornebury, Public Factory,” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10, Piece: 4, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England). For the ‘housekeeper’ assignment in 1817, see “ISABELLA PHILLIPS, Broxbornebury, Housekeeper,” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10; Piece: 9, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England). For Mary Cavillon’s 1820 muster at the Factory under the alias “Isabella Phillips” see Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10; Piece: 14, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[81] Samuel Marsden, Letter to his Excellency, 15 July 1815, ‘Minutes of Evidence taken before SELECT’; House of Commons, “Report from the Select Committee on the State of Gaols &c.” (12 July 1819) in House of Commons, Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons 51: Prisons (House of Commons, 1836), p. 82.

[82] For her 1821 muster at the Factory, see “ISABELLA PHILLIPS per Broxbornebury, Public Factory,” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10; Piece: 17, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[83] Lachlan Macquarie, “Appendix to the Report of Major General Lachlan Macquarie, late Governor of the Colony of New South Wales, being A List and Schedule of Public Buildings and Works erected and other useful Improvements, made in the Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies, at the expence [sic] of the Crown from the 1st of January, 1810, to the 30th of November, 1821,” 30 November 1822, ‘Enclosure marked A,’ in J. T. Bigge, Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales, (New South Wales: House of Commons, 1822) accessed 24 June 2015; Terry Kass, Carol Liston, and John McClymont, Parramatta: A Past Revealed (Parramatta: Parramatta City Council, 1996), pp. 97–99.

[84] Lachlan Macquarie, “Appendix to the Report of Major General Lachlan Macquarie, late Governor of the Colony of New South Wales, being A List and Schedule of Public Buildings and Works erected and other useful Improvements, made in the Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies, at the expence [sic] of the Crown from the 1st of January, 1810, to the 30th of November, 1821,” 30 November 1822, ‘Enclosure marked A,’ in J. T. Bigge, Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales, (New South Wales: House of Commons, 1822) accessed 24 June 2015.

[85] Lachlan Macquarie, “Appendix to the Report of Major General Lachlan Macquarie, late Governor of the Colony of New South Wales, being A List and Schedule of Public Buildings and Works erected and other useful Improvements, made in the Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies, at the expence [sic] of the Crown from the 1st of January, 1810, to the 30th of November, 1821,” 30 November 1822, ‘Enclosure marked A,’ in J. T. Bigge, Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New South Wales, (New South Wales: House of Commons, 1822) accessed 24 June 2015.

[86] See the 1822 General Muster, “ISABELLA PHILLIPS, Broxbornebury,” Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania, Class: HO10, Piece: 36, (The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England).

[87] Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0), 15 September 1819, trial of SAMUEL BURR (t18190915-78), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18190915-78, accessed 3 November 2019. New South Wales Government, 1828 Census: Householders’ Returns [Population and Statistics, Musters and Census Records, Census, Colonial Secretary], Series: NRS 1273; Reel: 2507, (State Records Authority of New South Wales, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia).

[88]Commissariat Department,” The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Tuesday 28 December 1830, p. 1.

[89]Police Incidents,” The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 – 1848), Saturday 26 August 1826, p. 3.

[90] See Michaela Ann Cameron, “Nicholas Cavillon: A Hardened Villain,” St. John’s Online, (2020), https://stjohnsonline.org/bio/nicholas-cavillon, accessed 3 November 2019.

[91] “Marriage of NICHOLAS CAVILLION [sic] and MILBAH HARRAX, 10 March 1829,” Parish Marriage Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[92] See “Baptism of MARY ANN CAVILLON, born 29 May 1830, baptised 17 October 1820,” Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia. Victoria Cavillon was born on 9 October 1832, a little over four months after her grandmother Mary Cavillon passed away. “Baptism of VICTORIA CAVELION [sic], born 9 October 1832, baptised 4 November 1832,” Parish Baptism Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[93] “Burial of MARY CAVILION [sic], Parramatta, Buried 3 June 1832, Age 62 years, Bloxamberry [sic], Free Settler, R. Forrest, Offng Minister,” Parish Burial Records, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[94] Mary Cavillon, Section 3, Row G, No. 15, St. John’s Cemetery, Parramatta. See Judith Dunn, The Parramatta Cemeteries: St. John’s, (Parramatta: Parramatta and District Historical Society, 1991), p. 166; “Burial of MARY CAVILION [sic], Parramatta, Buried 3 June 1832, Age 62 years, Bloxamberry [sic], Free Settler, R. Forrest, Offng Minister,” Parish Burial Records, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[95] NICHOLAS CAVILLON, Section 3, Row G, No. 15, St. John’s Cemetery, Parramatta. See Judith Dunn, The Parramatta Cemeteries: St. John’s, (Parramatta: Parramatta and District Historical Society, 1991), p. 166. “Burial of NICHOLAS CAVILLON; Abode: Parramatta North; When Died: Sep 8 [1869]; When Buried: Sep 10 [1869]; Age: 68; Quality of Profession: [not recorded]; By whom the ceremony was performed: W. J. Günther,” Parish Burial Registers, Textual Records, St. John’s Anglican Church, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia.

[96] Kentish Gazette, 18 December 1810, p. 2; “The Prince Regent’s Court,” The Globe, 1 March 1811, p. 3; Saint James Chronicle, 7 March 1811, p. 4; Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser, 8 March 1811, p. 3.

[97] For further discussion of the consequences of the loss of a male breadwinner in this period, see Caitlin Adams, “Lives Left Behind: The Forsaken Families of First Fleeters,” St. John’s Online (2019), https://stjohnsonline.org/bio/james-ogden, accessed 3 November 2019.

© Copyright 2019 Michaela Ann Cameron