What was it like at Native Dog Creek in these early years?

​

We can get only glimpses of life at Native Dog Creek and surrounds from what is reported in newspapers of the time[1]. Thomas Arkell was an influential land holder and for this family Charlton was inextricably linked to our fortunes. It is through Thomas we learn a lot about the early days in the region. The politics of the time was certainly robust too.

​

The 1830’s and 40’s:

​

The 1830’s to 40’s shows a period of development and land acquisition in Native Dog Creek and surrounds. Whilst it was hard with drought being experienced convicts were still being assigned to large landholders and perhaps small, land was being leased and  strong politics to represent the area was at play. There were the requisite bushrangers and stolen animals indicating a level of social need and poverty but William being a landholder was not “ struggling” it can be assumed. His relationship to Joseph Sewell would have brought him into contact with Thomas Arkell and during these years his mother Frances would have still been living at Sewells Creek. Mary Ann also came from landed stock and her marriage to William would suggest that Josephus Henry Barsden as District Constable was known to Arkell and Sewell. Mary Ann however would not have had rights to her husbands land at this time under the law of coveture.

​

• April 1833 2 convicts from the Roslyn Castle were assigned to Thomas Arkell at Charlton-Michael Conlan Farm servant and John Cormack mason’s labourer. The 1828 Census of New South Wales shows that Thomas Arkell was aged 53 & came as a free settler on a ship called “Experiment”. Of his 1000 acres, 100 had been cleared, 25 cultivated & he owned 9 horses, 300 cattle & 1000 sheep. There were fifteen people in the employment of Thomas Arkell & Joseph Sewell -a free man by now-was one of those & was employed as a shepherd.

 

• In 1834 Robert Redfern acquired significant acreage in the Davys Creek, Native Dog Creek and Campbells River areas and would have joined Arkell and Sewell as a large landholder in the area.[2]

 

• Sept 24th 1838 Thomas Arkell of Charlton places an ad in the Sydney Herald posting a reward of 2 pounds for the return of 2 horses stolen by three armed bushrangers . The two horses had been stolen from his stockman on the Lachlan River. The article says that the bushrangers were the same who had stolen from My Buffett and committed other deprivations in the district of Bathurst and they had now gone to the River Murray.

 

• August 15 1839 again Thomas Arkell posts an ad but this time for the loss of several bullocks on the Bathurst Rd. He will provide a reward on conviction of those with the bullocks in their possession. A well written offering that does not provide for reward for information!

 

• 7th Dec 1841 Sydney Herald shows Thomas Arkell Esq supporting immigration. It states:

​​

“ In our former article we gave an alphabetical list of the Colonists who, three years ago voted in favour of the proposal to raise a loan of two millions for the promotion of immigration on a large scale, together with a copy of the general declaration to that effect to which they severally subscribed their names. We have now to quote the reasons assigned for such vote by a large number of the landholders, to whom the Committee addressed a circular, containing, among others, the following query :

​

It has been suggested, that it would be advantageous to the interests of the Colony to raise money in England on the security of the land sales, at a low interest, for the purpose of promoting immigration on a more extended scale : will you stale your opinion upon this subject ?"

​

From the written answers returned we select the following :

​

THOMAS ARKELL, Esquire, Charlton, Bathurst:—"I think it would be advantageous to the colony, as without a plentiful supply of labour the colony must gradually retrograde instead of advance."

 

This would have initially been raised in 1838 so perhaps there was talk of ceasing convict labour at the time and landholders were worried about a steady supply of labour for the colony.

 

• In 1842 1065 acres was released for sale at 12 shillings an acre at Native Dog Creek. This could have included the 100 acres of William and Mary’s land.

 

• In 1842 Thomas Arkell brought a hive of bees to Bathurst from Parramatta and thus introduced bees to the region.

 

• 1843 and a further 700 acres is opened up at the confluence of Native Dog Creek and Davys Creek.

 

• 1843 13th May in the Sydney Morning Herald notice is given that occupation leases for 1 year are being released for 1200 acres at Essington Park near the head of the Fish River.

 

• In 1843 Sarah McHenry was leasing out property at Native Dog Creek as well as Penrith:

 

TO BE LET, with immediate possession, if required, a Farm of 1880 acres, having its comfortable hut, large wheat padlocks, 5-., pc, situated at Native Dog Creek, about thirty miles from Bathurst. Apply to Mrs. M'Henry, or to Lieut. Lugard, New Military Barracks, Sydney; or to Henry Fulton Esq , Macquarie Plains. Rent very moderate. 7648[3]

 

It was unusual for women to own land and Sarah McHenry, daughter of Rev Henry Fulton, was granted 1280 acres, between the head of the Brisbane Valley Creek and Swatchfield in 1829, as a free grant to a clergyman’s daughter. Davis, Redmond, Hogan, Meehan and Fulton [settlers of Black Springs] were a small group of emancipists who played an important part in the affairs of the colony during Macquarie’s governorship. Their energy and ability justified Macquarie’s belief that good conduct and reformation should enable a man to regain his place in society, which he had lost when sentenced to transportation.[4] She held property in 1850 and 1852 at Native Dog Creek.

 

At this time in the colony there was a concept of “ dower”. Dower was a common law property right that provided a widow with the use rights to one third of all the freehold lands that her husband had owned during their marriage.[5] This right was debated in the legislature of NSW and was removed in the 1850. A husband however could have at any time limited his wife’s eligibility to dower in his will. The economic importance of landed property during the years of pastoral expansion in the 1830s' the agrarian depression of the 1840s and the rapid influx of migrants during the gold rushes of the 1850s were factors that accelerated legislative developments that shaped individuals' property rights. Social changes that increased demands for access to land affected not only property law but also ideas customarily associated with married women's status-based entitlements, such as dower.[6]

 

Land ownership by women in the early colony was complex. Free women married to convicts could own land as this article summarises:

​

“ In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, free wives of convicts occupied a unique position in New South Wales as they could possess land in their own names, a right typically denied to married women under the common law of coverture. Free women married to convicts were able to become landholders because their husbands' legal standing as felons temporarily suspended their wives' legal disabilities. For free wives of convicts, a complex relationship developed between their legal status as wives, their husbands' status as convicts and early colonial land ownership ideas and practices. Thus, while women in early New South Wales faced legal and economic disabilities, they were not all affected in the same manner and to the same degree.” [7]

​

• In 1848 elections were being held for the Legislative Council and only William Richard would have been eligible to vote as women did not have suffrage. It appeared from the newspaper articles to be a publicly robust competition between Mr Cheeke Commissioner of the Court of requests and an Irishman James Martin. Here are some of the appeals to the electors of Westmoreland and Cook that were made at the time and a bit of a history of Martin’s representation.

 

“ MR. CHEEKE AND MR. JAMES MARTIN.

​

A few days ago we had an article on the acquiescence on the part of Mr. Cheeke, the Commissioner of the Court of Re-quests, to a solicitation from the electors of the united counties of- Cook and Westmoreland to allow himself to. be put in nomination as their future   representative. We pointed out clearly and faithfully the difficult part Mr. Cheeke would have to play in the event 'of his election being secured. We demonstrated beyond doubt the incompatibility of his serving two masters-the Government and the electors; that from his peculiar position as a Government officer, if he served the Government faithfully he must sacrifice his constituents, but if, on the other hand, he, in the teeth of his appointment, voted on all occasions for the interest of the electors of Cook and Westmoreland, he could not fail sometimes lo come into collision with his patrons. His position would be an anomalous one, and the electors, as we said, would probably ere one session was over have cause to regret the object of their selection.

​

Not many hours had elapsed from the publication of our opinion on this subject ere we heard it rumoured that the COMMISSIONER was to be opposed by Mr. JAMES MARTIN. At first we treated the rumour as a joke-as nothing more than idle gossip. We had a faint recollection of Mr. JAMES MARTIN having once announced himself for the county of Durham, and of having retired before the day of nomination-and we had some vague reminiscence of his having told the electors of Durham that of which they as well as we were then ignorant, that he put forth his claims for their suffrages on the ground of his public conduct. In Mr. James Martin's address to the electors of Durham he told them what his political principles were ; on the present occasion he makes no avowal of his political views, and disdaining to rest his claims on his own merits, seeks to obtain an advantage over his opponent by contrasting his position with Mr. Cheeke. With Mr. CHEEKE we have no fault to find excepting that he is a Government official ; if he can adopt a middle course, if he can succeed in pleasing the Government and the electors, both may be satisfied ; we, however, have our doubts, and have expressed them. But that Mr. JAMES MARTIN should think that his claims to represent Cook and Westmoreland are so immeasurably su-perior to Mr. Cheekes is an hallucina tion of his own brain, a delusion which he is fruitlessly endeavouring to impress as real upon others. As an sttorney he may attain a respectable position-he has on one or two occasions made a lucky hit in the Police Court, but his position has not been that of a public man, neither is he trained for a senator. A man who may cut a tolerable figure in argument before a Police Magistrate may make a sorry exhibition in debating before the Speaker of the Legislative Council.

​

Mr. James Martin in his address to the electors of Cook and Westmoreland says, " I am not a person holding office in this colony during her Majesty's pleasure, and therefore bound to give the government my support when they require it." This is a truism of which we were aware before Mr. James Martin published it, and much as his services and counsels may in his estimation be required, the government and the colony have been able hitherto to jog on quietly and ably without them. " I am not one who receives a salary from the Crown, which if elected a member of Council I can retain only by betraying those who returned me." This is very like the fox and the grapes, but we are not so green as to suppose that in spite of what Mr. James Martin says he would object to change places with his rival, the COMMISSIONER, and pocket a cool thousand annually of the government revenue. "I am not one who is tied up by a despatch from giving an honest and an independent vote in the event of the government and the people coming into collision." True Mr. JAMES MARTIN is not tied up at present in the way he mentions, but there is no knowing what any of us may come to; and Mr. JAMES MARTIN should wait and see what Mr. Cheeke will do if returned, rather than anticipate that he will act dishonestly and corruptly. " I am not one who if I would consult my honour as a public man must make a voluntary surrender of my income." Mr. James Martin is incorrect in persisting that he is a public man, he is an attorney with-a fair share of assurance and some little tact, and we only know him as a public character from his own proclamations and assertions. I am not one who is afraid to publish an unequivocal avowal of my principles."

​

Whether Mr. James Martin is afraid or not he has not done so, but has said at the commencement of his address " I believe that my political views are already sufficiently known to enable me to dispense with a statement of them here." If Mr. CHEEKE has abstained from any avowal of the course which it is his intention to pursue, Mr. James Martin has followed in Mr; Cheeke's wake and kept the constituency of Cook and Westmoreland in the dark also. And we think it unkind of Mr. James Martin to give his rival a poke for this omission, seeing that he has fallen into the same error himself. " I am not one who being bound hand and foot asks for your votes without honestly informing you of the fact." Neither as far as we can learn has Mr. Cheeke asked them for their votes, it appears to us that the case is simply this : a requisition signed by a number of the electors of Cook and Westmoreland has been presented to Mr. CHEEKE, and he has accepted the invitation it conveyed ; but if we are rightly informed Mr. James Martin has been invited by the electors, but has stolen a march on the Commissioner and is at this moment canvassing the counties and soliciting vote's. " I am neither a hack nor a hanger on of the Government." This is indulging, Mr. James Martin in a little bit of personality, a course which invari-ably shows a weakness in the cause the party is advocating. " I am not one whom you cannot return without ignominiously and disgracefully disfranchising yourselves.' ' The gratitude of the electors is due to Mr. James Martin for having put the case of the electors so clearly before them. " Ignominiously" and " disgracefully'' are hard words but they will not intimidate "the electors; and what is more, if the electors should be so unruly and ungrateful as to return Mr. Cheeke in preference to Mr. James Martin, we think it our duty to tell them, in opposition to the legal opinion of Mr, James Martin that they will not be disenfranchised.

​

There is only one other passage that we shall quote from Mr. James Martins elaborate address, and we do it because, contrary to his usual practice, it is put forth with so much modesty and diffidence : the passage is this, " The country undoubtedly contains many persons more eligible than I am." .We were not prepared for this admission from Mr. Cheekes rival and if Mr. James Martin be really sincere on this point, we think he would have acted with more judgment and better taste, had he remained quiet until solicited to come forward as a candidate. Comparisons are said to be odious, and we should not have looked into the pretensions of the rival candidates, if Mr. James Martin had rested his claims upon his own merits. He has adopted the course of trying to gain an advantage by detracting from the merits of his opponent. The ruse will not succeed ; and much as we dislike seeing the hands of Government strengthened, as they will be, if Mr. CHEEKE is returned, we should, nevertheless, of the two candidates prefer seeing Mr, Cheeke the sitting member But surely there is some gentleman connected with the counties who will come into the field and relieve the electors from the dilemma in which they are at present placed.”  It appears James Martin was not a favoured candidate! [Sydney Morning Herald 8th July 1848]

​

James Martin: “To the Independent Electors of Cook and Westmoreland: Gentlemen I beg to announce myself as a candidate for the honor of representing you in the Legislative Council….. I am not a person holding office in this colony during her Majesty’s pleasure, and therefore bound to give the government my support when they require it. I am not one who receives a salary from the Crown, which if elected a member of Council I can retain only by betraying those who returned me…..If I should be opposed only by a gentleman who is all this that I am not I will not permit myself to believe that you will degrade yourselves by voting for him in preference to me.”  [Sydney Morning Herald Saturday 15th July 1848 ] James had a lot more to say about his opponent Mr Cheeke which was a direct attack on the man.

​

In the same edition of the paper the following was printed:

​

“Continuing the subject of electioneering movements, we found that Mr. Martin and his right-hand man, Mr. Fitzgerald, went to the Kurrajong on Friday, and from their report Mr, Cheeke has not the slightest chance in that quarter. But we happen to know very differently, and consider it a fresh example of Master James's overweening assurance.”

​

On the 25th July nomination of the candidates took place and the competitive and robust nature of the election was on show. Dirty politics dates back a long way!

​

“ COOK AND WESTMORELAND.

​

JULY 25. The nomination of candidates took place at the Court. House, Hartley, this day. JAMES WALKER, Esq., the returning officer, having taken the chair, read the writ.

​

JOHN MAXWELL, Esq., J.P., proposed Mr. Cheek as a proper person to represent the constituency he would not dwell on that gentleman's merits, for they were admitted, but would advert to the objection against him, that he was an officer of the government. There was a great deal in a name-much in a cry-but where was the reason for such antipathy to the government, that all connected with it should thereby be disqualified as a representative of the people-was the government necessarily a vile thing, an imposition, which should be got rid of? Such indiscriminate condemnation of government, whether good or bad, well or ill conducted, in sympathy with, or in opposition to the people, was irrational whatever he might think of the late, the present merited support, and it was not the interest of the constituencies to engage themselves in a blind hostility to that which was instituted for their benefit, and which was then only to be opposed, when acting in opposition to the interest or thwart-ing the wishes of the governed.

​

Captain BULL, J P., seconded the nomination of Mr. Cheeke. 

​

Ronald FITZGERALD, Esq., J.P., proposed Mr. James Martin as an eligible candidate. In exercising the high privilege, performing the important duty of choosing a representative, he should indulge in a great freedom of speech, and without intending offence by his animadversions, would ask on what grounds Mr. Cheeke made his appearance. Mr. Fitzgerald "then read and commented on Lord Stanley's despatch, and stated that the salary of Mr. Cheeke, represented at six percent interest, the sum of £14,000 no doubt Mr. Cheeke was an efficient and excellent public officer, but by whom was he now surrounded, by whom supported they all were either place-men, or expectant placemen-the contest was not between the candidates, but between the people and the government. Andrew BROWN, Esq., J.P., seconded the of nomination of Mr. Martin.

​

Mr. CHEEKE then addressed the electors, and after thanking the parties by whom he had been proposed, and his friends by whom he was surrounded, contradicted the assertion that he had thrust himself forward that had intruded himself upon them. Twelve months ago he had been solicited by a numerous requisition, and that requisition was followed in by a second about a month since. The question of Mr. Fitzgerald was therefore thus answered, the grounds for his appearance there was the solicitation of the respectable gentlemen who had signed the requisition. He denied that this was a contest between the government and the people was a contest between Alfred Cheeke and Robert Fitzgerald, for his opponent was the mere nominee of Mr. Fitzgerald, and had Mr Fitzgerald come forward himself, he Mr. Cheeke, would have retired. But he would not yield, and he believed that the constituency would not submit to Mr. Fitzgerald's nominee. Mr. Cheeke then read and commented on the despatches of Lord Stanley and Earl Grey, and explained the circumstances under which the former was written, and after detailing at great length his political opinions, as recorded in the Herald of the 2nd July, adverted to his opponent's profession of pecuniary independence, as possess -rug an income from his practice larger than that of any official. Mr. Martin's annual income must therefore be upwards of £2000, and from whom was it extracted, from whom squeezed, was it not from the people ? True it was that he (Mr. Cheeke) was a salaried officer, and like his opponent was paid for services rendered. But why should it be denied to the one more than to the other, that there was value given, that the income was fairly earned,

​

Mr. MARTIN, in a speech of great length commenced with commenting on the arguments and complaining of the conduct of Mr. Maxwell, It had been insinuated in private by that gentleman, that a hundred a year from the government would buy him (Mr. Martin). There was no office in the power of the government to bestow, which he (Mr. Martin) would consent to accept. five (Mr. Martin) possessed an income from is profession of £1300 a year, and upwards; and though it had been stated that he could not qualify, he would meet such statement at the proper time, by proving a qualification double in value to that required. Mr. Martin then contended that his opponent was disqualified from his position, from compulsion, from inclination, to represent any constituency, and argued that the two despatches which had been read were not contradictory but consistent. The Was not there as the nominee of Mr. Fitzgerald, He came recommended to them by that tried patriot, Mr. Wentworth ; would they send a man to the Council whose inclination, whose interests, l whose very official existence would compel him to support the Government. The colonists have been slandered, traduced, and vilified ; but no slander, no reproach could be so great as that of surrendering the franchise, obtained after twenty-five years' struggle, by choosing as a representative an officer of the Government.

​

Upon a show of hands, a majority being held up for Mr. Martin, Mr. Cheeke demanded a poll. Mr. MARTIN then moved, and Mr. CHEEKE seconded, a vote To the Returning Officer, when the meeting dispersed.” [Sydney Morning Herald 29th July 1848]

This was an election between a candidate James Martin an Irish free settler and a member of the Sydney elite or was it? He certainly was not a man of the establishment but he was also not a man of the land. He supported coercive policies and the continuation of convict labour. He was hardly a man of the people.

​

 James Martins’ bio of 1856: “At this general election in 1848, Mr. Martin offered himself as a candidate for the representation of the united counties of Cook and Westmoreland, in avowed opposition to Mr. Alfred Cheeke, the Commissioner of the Court of Requests, and was elected by a large majority. He thus entered the Legislative Council, when he was twenty-eight years of age. A petition was presented against his return, and he was unseated, but he was re-elected, without going to a poll. At the next general election, in 1851, Mr. Martin again offered himself for Cook and Westmoreland, on which occasion I10 was opposed by the late Mr Alexander Longmore, brought forward avowedly in the Roman Catholic interest. Mr Martin was again elected.” [The Age May 1st 1856]

​

Who was James Martin? A biography of him published in The Age Melbourne 1st May 1856 gives a great insight into what was happening in the colony at the time and to Sir James who was clearly a young man of intellect and strong will. Were William and Mary interested in such affairs? Did William vote even?

​

“ The senior member for Cook and Westmoreland is another of the many men of  influence in this country who are generally regarded as ' sons of the soil,' but who are not Australians by birth. Like several other members of the Assembly- already noticed in these sketches, Mr James Martin is ' almost a native,'.' having arrived in the colony so young that he has no recollection of his fatherland. In feeling and character he is a thorough Australian ; his virtues and his faults are alike interwoven with the chequered history of his adopted country. Mr Martin is a native of Ireland. He is the eldest son of John Martin ana Mary Hennessey, and was born in the town of Middleton, county of Cork, on the 11th of May, 1820. He is consequently in his thirty-sixth year. His parents emigrated to New South Wales in 1821, and arrived at Sydney on the 7th of November in that year. Mr Martin received his earliest elementary education in the town of Paramatta, first at an infant school kept by Mrs Smith, whose husband, ' Smith, the Builder,' we are told, as some evidence of the unchangeable character of that ancient Australian community, still resides in the same house, though thirty years have intervened. Afterwards, young Martin attended various schools conducted by Mr Daniel Thurston, Mr Cassidy, Mr Robert Smith, Mr Bradley, and the Rev. William Walker; and at the establishment of Mr Walker, who was a gentleman of ability and good attainments, he made considerable progress, before he was nine years of age. On the removal of his parents to Sydney, he was, in the year 1834, placed at Mr Cape's academy, in King street, where he remained till the opening of the Sydney College on the 19th of January, 1835. Mr Cape was appointed Head Master of the College, and Mr Martin continued under his tuition in that institution till the end of the year 1836. Having chosen the profession of the law, Mr Martin entered the office of Mr Nichols, the present member for the Northumberland Boroughs, where he remained the usual period under articles of clerkship. On the 10th of May/Sept?, 1845, he was admitted an attorney, solicitor and proctor of the Supreme Court, and since that , date, he has continued the practise of his profession in Sydney. At an early age Sir Martin became a contributor to the newspapers, and he published a volume of juvenile essays under the title of ' The Australian Sketch Book.' In November, 1844, The Atlas, a weekly journal, was started in the interest of the squatters, who were then at deadly feud with Sir George Gipps. On its first appearance, a remarkable amount of talent was brought to bear upon the columns of this journal, Mr Lowe and several other leading members of the opposition in the legislature being connected with its management. After about four months, during which The Atlas rose rapidly in reputation for the fierceness and brilliancy of its attacks upon the Government, and its general ability, some misunderstanding arose among the conductors, and the editorship was given by the proprietor to Mr. Martin, who continued its sole conductor for nearly two years. Since his retirement from The Atlas , Mr. Martin has occasionally contributed political articles to the public press, and for a' short time, in 1851, he was a regular writer in the columns of The Empire……. The eight years during which Mr Martin sat in the Legislative Council form an eventful period of Australian history. The question of British transportation was debated for the last time, the electoral divisions of the colony were determined upon what was intended to be an enduring scale, the management of the gold-fields was originated, a tariff was constructed upon free trade principles, a Constitution for our 'future government was framed, a branch of the Royal Mint was established. In all these great questions Mr Martin took a conspicuous and decided part. He advocated the continuance of convict labour, strenuously supported the claims of property in the representation, favoured a coercive policy for the mining population, strove to enforce the doctrines of protection in the settlement of the Customs duties, delivered ' a splendid oration,' as it was admiringly designated by Mr Plunkett, in defence of the Constitution Bill, and virtually took the Mint out of the hands of the Executive, and entitled himself to be regarded as its founder.

​

In the 1856 election James Martin was asked to run for the Sydney electorate but declined in favour of remaining loyal to Westmoreland and Cook which now had 2 representatives. The Age noted “ It is known that Mr Wentworth paid great attention to Mr Martin in the Legislative Council, and frequently expressed the opinion that he would rise to political eminence.”

​

The 1856 election was the first since the introduction of self-government in New South Wales. Only men over 21 years of age with sufficient property were allowed to vote and if they had property in other electorates they could have multiple votes. Aboriginal men were in theory allowed to vote but were mostly excluded from voting. In 1856, the Australian frontier wars were ongoing between various Aboriginal First Nations and the NSW government and colonists. The resulting parliament, devoid of anything resembling party structure, ran for two weeks before Stuart Donaldson assumed the premiership, and struggled to deliver stable government during its term.[8]
 

William would have been eligible to vote as he owned property in Westmoreland. I wonder if he supported James Martin?  Did Martin actually represent the views of landed people in Westmoreland? He was a Sydney based representative.

​

Sir James Martin, QC (14 May 1820 – 4 November 1886)[1] was three times Premier of New South Wales,

and Chief Justice of  New South Wales from 1873 to 1886. Martin was elected as one of two members for  

Cook and Westmoreland. When that electorate was largely replaced by the single member electorate of  

Hartley, Martin successfully stood for the new four member electorate of East Sydney. He was subsequently

the member for Orange, Tumut, Monaro, Lachlan and East Macquarie.[2] 

​

In August 1856 he was made Attorney-General of New South Wales in the first ministry of Charles Cowper.

The appointment was controversial, as Martin was the first holder of the office who had not been admitted

as a barrister.[9] He had to resign his seat as a result of accepting the office, however he was re-elected

unopposed.[10] The appointment was brief, as the government was defeated in a no-confidence motion in October 1856 and Martin returned to the backbench.[9]  He went on to have an illustrious career.

 

• Thomas Arkell died at his home at Charlton on 12th April 1848 after a “  short but severe illness borne with Christian fortitude”[10] He was in his 75th year and described as an old and much respected colonist having emigrated in January 1804. His body was removed to the premises of R. Smith Esq where family and friends gathered. His funeral procession to the protestant burial grounds passed through the town which we assume is Rockley and was followed by many eminent persons of the district. [ Obituary published in Sydney Morning Herald 19th April 1848]. Charles McPhillamy and Samuel Smith were his executors. See the small chapter on Arkell and Charlton for more information. In 1840 Thomas had divided his properties between Elizabeth Millage Smith wife of Samuel Smith, Samuel and Lucy Ann Arkell who married Charles Marsden McPhillamy. It is the McPhillamy’s that Tom and Jo Smith worked for on Charlton.[11]  See the chapter on Arkell to explore whether Elizabeth or Lucy Ann were in fact his daughters.

 

[1] TROVE archives

[2] TROVE newspapers  1834

[3]  Sydney Morning Herald Monday 11th December 1843

[4] https://www.blackspringscommunityassociation.com.au/copy-of-about-us

[5] http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2004/5.pdf

[6] Op cit

[7] https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.935684675242831

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_New_South_Wales_colonial_election

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(Australian_politician) and https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/Premiers-of-New-South-Wales-1856-present.aspx

 

[10] Sydney Morning Herald 19th April 1848

[11] https://noelgunness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-children-of-sophia-millage-arkell.pdf