LINK FROM PAGE 5100. FIND 'CONVICT SHIP BROTHERS'

CONVICTS SHIPS

[1820 - 1825]

Lettered notes may be found on [PAGE2010]

A numbered list giving the sources of material may be found on [PAGE2020]

INTRODUCTION

TRANSPORTATION TO AUSTRALIA (See Note B)

In January 1788 the First Fleet sailed into Sydney harbour and established Britain's first permanent settlement on the Australian continent. This settlement, which had been transported from England in a fleet of 8 ships, consisted of the Governor and 9 of his staff, about 270 marines, officers, their wives and children, and 750 convicts - just over a 1000 people.

For the first two years these settlers suffered considerable hardship, but after the arrival of the Second Fleet in 1790 conditions began to improve and by the end of the century about 7500 convicts, of whom 1500 were women, had been landed at Sydney. By 1820, the first year James Hall visited Australia, nearly 30,000 had made the long journey from England and Ireland.

They came in ships of various sizes, most of them being between 300 and 600 tons. The largest ships carried up to 250 convicts and the smaller ones as few as 120. Until about 1805, male and female convicts were carried on the same ship, but after that date the two sexes were separated. In the 1820s, during which decade James Hall made three visits to Australia, there were about 200 convict ship voyages, 37 of which carried female convicts. Like the size of the ships and the number of convicts carried, the length of the voyages varied considerably. The three voyages made by James Hall in the 1820s took 142, 146 and 153 days, respectively, but they could be as short as 100 or as long as 200 days.

The convict ships were chartered merchant ships manned by merchant navy officers and crew. Male convict ships had a guard with an army officer in charge, and the welfare and discipline of the convicts were the responsibility of the Surgeon-Superintendent (see Note C) who were recruited from Surgeons of the Royal Navy. This post had been created in 1814 in order to improve the conditions of the convicts. By giving executive authority to the medical profession it had greatly reduced the numbers of convicts who died during the long voyages. James Hall lost only three convicts on the four voyages that he made. In many of the earlier voyages as many as ten might die on a single voyage and the death rate was halved in the decade following the introduction of this post.

JAMES HALL IN AUSTRALIA

Between 1820 and 1832 James Hall made four voyages to Australia, each time as Surgeon-Superintendent of a convict ship. The first voyage was in 1820 on board the Agamemnon, the second in 1821 on the Mary Ann, the third in 1824 on the Brothers and the fourth in 1832 on the Georgiana. The first and fourth voyages were in male convict ships and second and third in female convict ships. The voyages in the two male convict ships seem to have been uneventful, but the peacefulness of these two voyages was more than compensated for by the dramatic events that occurred during or after his voyages in the two female convict ships.

We have no Diaries covering this period and main source of information concerning James' adventures in Australia comes from The Historical Records of Australia (see Note A) and relates to three events which occurred during or after James voyages on board the Mary Ann and Brothers. The first of these events which has been entitled The Case of Ann Rumsby took place ashore after the Mary Ann had arrived in Sydney. It has the promising ingredients of politics, the law and an attractive female convict.

THE CASE OF ANN RUMSBY¹

1821-22

THE ACCUSATIONS

When the Mary Ann sailed from Portsmouth on Christmas Day 1821 she had on board a convict named Ann Rumsby, who had been sentenced at Norwich Quarter Sessions to 7 years transportation for larceny². She was aged 19 and described as 'handsome' and 'possessing some beauty of person'.

On arrival at Sydney in late May, Ann Rumsby was sent to the Female Factory at Parramatta (see Note C) from where, after about a month, she went into service with a Dr Douglass³, the Superintendent of the Female Factory. Dr Douglass was a prominent local figure who, although he had only arrived in the colony the previous year, was a magistrate and close friend of the Governor, Sir Thomas Brisbane. James Hall also took up medical responsibilities at the same establishment and on one occasion, at least, met and spoke to Ann Rumsby there. We also know from his Medical Register [PAGE2030] that Ann Rumsby saw James Hall as a patient on several occasions on board the Mary Ann.

For reasons that are not completely clear, although a possible one will be mentioned later in the Emu Plains case which is described below, James Hall and a friend, Sir James Jamison, decided to visit the home of Dr Douglass at Parramatta on the 31st July. There are two versions of what happened next. According to James Hall, finding that the Doctor was not at home, he and his friend left, but accidentally looking behind them they saw a girl, who turned out to be Ann Rumsby, running after them. James Hall claims he had a conversation with her for a few minutes and was told, in explicit terms, that having taken her out of the factory, Dr Douglass was making frequent attempts to seduce her.

The second version comes from the evidence of four witnesses, two servants of Dr Douglass, a Turnpike Gate keeper and a passer by, known as Scrummy Jack. The two servants both agreed that Ann Rumsby came into the hall while James Hall was inquiring whether Dr Douglass was at home. They also agreed that James Hall took Ann Rumsby outside for two or three minutes, but that they did not appear to have much conversation. In his evidence Scrummy Jack [PAGE2040] says that, while walking along the road, he was approached by James Hall and asked to deliver a message to Ann Rumsby saying he wished to speak to her. After delivering the message to the house Scrummy Jack met James Hall coming back and saw Ann Rumsby come out to meet him. He further added that he did not see Ann Rumsby running. Matthew Finnegan, the Turnpike Gate Keeper [PAGE2040] was also a witness to these events. His evidence confirms that Scrummy Jack delivered the message and was then followed by Ann Rumsby. He also states that on the meeting of James Hall and Ann Rumsby they had a few minutes conversation before going together into the Wattle brush where they remained for 15 to 20 minutes.

Ann Rumsby then returned to the house and James Hall passed through the toll gate, closely followed by Scrummy Jack who was expecting some payment for delivering the message. Andrew White [PAGE2040], one of the servants, generally confirms the latter part of the story. He received the message from Scrummy Jack and passed it on. About 20 minutes after Anne Rumsby left he went out to look for her and saw her talking to James Hall near the Wattle brush. On her return 10 minutes later he asked her what had passed between them and she said that she had told James Hall that Dr Douglass would be the ruin of her as he was arranging for her to be married to a man called Bragge whom she did not love. She also added that James Hall had given her 10/-.

It is unlikely that we will ever know exactly what James Hall and Ann Rumsby said to each other on Wed 31st July 1822, but whatever it was, it appears to have convinced James Hall that her virtue was under serious threat from the attentions of Dr Douglass. So far the story might seem to form the basis for the plot of a novel by Barbara Cartland, however in the next few weeks the affair would develop so that it involved many of the most prominent citizens of the colony, the Governor and ultimately, Lord Bathurst, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London. James Hall set the wheels in motion.

On returning to Sydney from his meeting with Ann Rumsby, he met by chance the Rev'd Samuel Marsden, Principal Chaplain, senior magistrate and political opponent of the Governor and Dr Douglass, and sought his support to obtain the release of Ann Rumsby from the clutches of Dr Douglass. He appears to have suggested that this should be done discreetly by having her sent to another position. Several days later he wrote to Ann Rumsby a very emotional letter [PAGE2050] with strong religious overtones. For instance its opening sentence read "Your Conduct, my Dear Girl, in having successfully resisted all the attempts that have been made to seduce you, continue to excite my admiration and it will keep you always in my Remembrance,' and asking that she should write a letter repeating 'everything that she had told him'. On receiving no reply he sends another letter a few days later.

One of the reasons that Ann Rumsby had not answered James Hall's letters was that she could not read and had had to show them to her fellow servant, Andrew White. She appears to have done this on Sunday 11th. When he read the letters, Andrew White, who wanted to marry Ann Rumsby, asked whether their Master had taken any liberties with her. She replied that he had not. He then advised her to tell her Master about the letters, which she did on Tuesday 13th, while he was having his breakfast. This is the first time that Dr Douglass knew of the accusations that were being made against him. After wisely telling his wife, he immediately proceeded to the Court house and finding a fellow magistrate named Hannibal Macarthur there, asks him to come to his house and question Ann Rumsby. He also sends messages to James Hall and Samuel Marsden, who were in Sydney, to come to his house and explain to him what is going on. James Hall replied that he is too busy and Samuel Marsden returns the next day but makes no effort to come and see Dr Douglass.

THE INVESTIGATIONS

In the meantime on Monday 12th James Hall had sworn an Affidavit [PAGE2050]with the Office of the Judge Advocate detailing 'a variety of indecent liberties taken by Dr Douglass with the person of Ann Rumsby'. He next writes a letter [PAGE2050] to the Rev'd Samuel Marsden expressing surprise that no action has been taken to remove Ann Rumsby from the influence of Dr Douglass. He ends his letter saying that he will call on Samuel Marsden the next day to request that, in his capacity as Magistrate and Senior Chaplain, he will summons Ann Rumsby before the Bench to answer questions on the conduct of Dr Douglass.

On the 15th Dr Douglass, hearing that James Hall is with the Rev'd Marsden he goes round to confront the two men. He asks to see Dr Hall's letter to Rev'd Marsden. Both men refused to show it to him unless he sent Ann Rumsby to the Female Factory. A heated exchange followed in which Dr Douglass told them that 'he did not care a flip of the finger' for his fellow magistrates, who were preparing to investigate the case the next day.

The next day, Friday, Dr Douglass played his trump card, namely his close friendship with the Governor. He sent Ann Rumsby up to Sydney in his gig where she was interviewed by Sir Thomas Brisbane himself. He asked her whether she had any complaints against her Master and she replied she had always been treated with the greatest kindness. The magistrates had a less satisfactory day. Having convened they found they could not proceed because their key witness had gone to Sydney. To relieve their feelings they passed a resolution, which was forwarded to the Governor, that in future they would not associate with Dr Douglass as a magistrate. They then arranged to convene again the next day.

James Hall then returned to Sydney where he wrote letters to the Governor [PAGE2050] and the Judge Advocate drawing attention to his Affidavit and asking the former to order a full investigation of the case. It seems unlikely that he knew the Governor had met Ann Rumsby that day. On Saturday evening James Hall received a letter from the Colonial Secretary, Francis Goulbourn, in answer to his letter to the Governor. It stated that while the Governor was prepared to have an investigation, he would first require answers to seven questions. It was not a particularly friendly letter and the sting was in the last question. 'The Various occasions that you have tendered Money to Ann Rumsby, and the reason for such liberality?'

On the Saturday the Bench of Magistrates sat again and Ann Rumsby was instructed to attend, but Mrs Douglass refused to send her in the absence of her husband. The Bench issued a warrant 'to enforce her appearance for the furtherance of Public Justice' and arranged that the Bench should convene again on Monday 19th.

On the Monday morning the proceedings began with an announcement that Dr Douglass had refused to attend the investigation on the grounds that his presence might unfairly influence Ann Rumsby. Ann Rumsby was then called before the Bench and the proceedings continued with an address by James Hall explaining his reasons for bringing the charges against Dr Douglass. He denied that he was 'a Moralist and more religious than other People' but was merely following 'the instructions he had received from the Government to do all in his power to promote reformation amongst the Women Convicts committed to his charge'. He went on to explain that his policy was to treat them as a father would his unfortunate children and that he never considered them as convicts. James Hall then invited the Bench to begin their questioning of Ann Rumsby.

The first part of the questioning concerned an incident that had occurred on board the Mary Ann where a female convict named Ellerbeck was handcuffed to another convict and kept on bread and water for several days as a punishment for being on deck in the night with a sailor. Ann Rumsby had been present during this period of punishment and also when she was released. When questioned she described how Ellerbeck fell on her knees before James Hall both praying and weeping. She also said that although she could not remember whether James Hall had kissed Ellerbeck on this occasion, he did kiss other young females after punishment if they were sorry for their offence. Further questioning elicited that at no times had James Hall attempted to seduce her and that she looked upon him as a father figure. She added that he had given her religious books as presents.

The next part of the questioning covered the events of the 31st July. Ann Rumsby's version of various people's movements generally supported the second version given above. For instance she confirmed that James Hall talked to her in the house and the garden outside and that her second conversation was the result of him sending for her. However it was when the questioning came to what she had told James Hall, that their account of events differed most widely. In his Memorandum attached to his Affidavit of 12th August James Hall, amongst other charges, specifically charges Dr Douglass with having 'on some occasions, forced her down on the Bed, and then attempted to raise her Clothes and that in short he had been endeavouring to force her to comply with his wishes'.

Under questioning Ann Rumsby denied that these events or any similar ones had ever taken place. She did however raise the question of her proposed marriage to Bragge in an attempt to explain the misunderstanding. She told how Dr Douglass had arranged that she should be married to a convict called Bragge and that the Banns had been read on 4th August. She said she did not wish to marry Bragge and when telling James Hall that Dr Douglass 'would be the ruin of her' she was referring to these marriage plans.

There were two further pieces of evidence that may be significant. One came from Charles Connor, a servant of Dr Douglass, who stated in evidence that he was asked by Ann Rumsby 'to pass a message to Dr Hall,' through a messenger he had sent, asking him to keep secret their conversations of the 31st July as 'Dr and Mrs Douglass meant to do something handsome for her.' The second piece of evidence came from a Mary Wooton, a convict who had come out to Australia in the same ship as Ann Rumsby. She was adamant that there was no question of Dr Douglass taking liberties with Ann Rumsby and, because of her position in the household, would have known if anything untoward was happening.

The final part of the investigation consisted of Dr Hall reading out to the Bench the letter he had received on Saturday from the Colonial Secretary, Mr Goulbourn [PAGE2060] and his reply to it. He pointed out that answers to the first six 'particulars' were largely available from the material provided to the Bench of Magistrates. It was the last question that 'offended' James Hall most deeply. In his reply he assured the Governor 'that the reasons for my benevolence are to be found in the Scriptures, which I am in the habit of reading daily' and that 'It gives me infinite pain that His Excellency the Governor had made so cruel, so unjust and unfounded a recrimination on my Character, therefore I have to ask that such a base insinuation be withdrawn or that an enquiry be immediately instituted into my general character and that all the Women, now in the Colony who were under My Charge in the Mary Ann may be examined in any way His Excellency may deem the best for the attainment of truth'. He then challenges the Governor to examine an Emily Johnson, a nurse at the Colonial Hospital 'as to the occasion and reason of his liberal donation of money to her'. His final sentence ended on the high note of 'The rest I leave to God and to my Conscience'. Unfortunately the Governor does not seem to have been completely satisfied by this reply.

The Bench of Magistrates were not pleased at the way the investigation had gone. While in theory their main concern was the virtue of Ann Rumsby, in practice they were much more interested in damaging the reputation of Dr Douglass, thereby furthering their political struggle with the Governor and his allies the Emancipists (see Note D). Completely ignoring the evidence, the Bench, after praising James Hall for his public spirited behaviour in bringing the charges against Dr Douglass, they convicted Ann Rumsby of 'Wilful and corrupt Perjury' and sentenced her to be imprisoned for the remaining 5 years of her existing sentence at the penal settlement of Port Macquarie. Not only did this sentence commit the poor girl to a terrible fate, but it was a completely illegal act as the Bench of Magistrates did not have the power to try the offence of Perjury.

THE GOVERNOR'S REACTION

Fortunately the Governor had other plans. Infuriated by the Parramatta Bench's illegal actions and its challenge to his authority by refusing to serve with Dr Douglass, he ordered them to reverse this decision or offer their resignation. Supported by the other magistrates in the colony they refused and were therefore suspended by the Governor. At the same time, dissatisfied by the illegal conduct of the inquiry and the quality of the evidence he quashed the sentence on Ann Rumsby. On the 23rd August he also ordered the Crown Solicitor [PAGE2060] to initiate legal proceedings against James Hall in connection with a claim by Dr Douglas who was seeking £5000 damages for libel.

In the meantime James Hall was making arrangements for his return to England and had booked a passage on board the Shipley, a vessel that was due to sail on the 8th September. On the 4th September his plans were rudely disrupted. He was arrested as a result of the civil proceedings started by the Governor. Fortunately he was able to raise the necessary bail, but could no longer take passage on board the Shipley. However although this ship may have had to sail without James Hall, it did carry two important letters connected with the Ann Rumsby case. The first was a letter from Sir Thomas Brisbane to Lord Bathurst [PAGE2061], the Colonial Secretary, and the second was a very indignant letter from James Hall to the Navy Board [PAGE2070] giving his version of events.

For the next two weeks James tried to establish when his trial would take place so that he could make new arrangements for returning to England. When it became clear that it was likely to be postponed for several months, he decided to obtain a passage from Captain King in the survey sloop Bathurst, which earlier in the year had been charting the NW coast of Australia. This ship was due to sail for England on the 25th Sept.

It was fortunate that he took this decision. The trial did not take place until December. At the trial the Rev'd Samuel Marsden was questioned and confirmed that he had received the letter but said he did not consider it libellous. Ann Rumsby was also present and repeated her evidence denying James Hall's version of events. Judgement was given against James Hall but Dr Douglass was only awarded damages of 40 shillings and costs 15.

JAMES HALL and THE COLONIAL OFFICE

Shipley appears to have arrived in England in late January 1823 having made a very fast passage of about 100 days.

From that date until the following August documents connected with the Ann Rumsby case take up more space in the relevant Colonial Office file than any other topic.

The first stage of the story covers the handling by the Navy Office and Colonial Office of the two letters carried in Shipley from James Hall [PAGE2070] and Sir Thomas Brisbane [PAGE2060] respectively. The Navy Office played a small part in this stage. With a shrewd piece of staff work they forwarded James Hall's letter to the Colonial Secretary and took no further action. This move left Lord Bathurst or, to be more accurate, his Under-Secretary of State, Robert Wilmot Horton M.P., with both letters to deal with.

This task was initially handed over to Francis Forbes (see Note E), a respected lawyer who had been Chief Justice of Newfoundland and was now Chief Justice designate for New South Wales. In his report Francis Forbes was very critical of the behaviour of both James Hall and the Magistrates. He forwarded his report [PAGE2070] to Lord Bathurst on the 3rd March and on the April 1st Lord Bathurst sent a letter [PAGE2070] to the Governor approving his action of having dismissed the Magistrates. This letter would not have reached New South Wales until July at the earliest. One must hope that it was a comfort to Sir Thomas to learn, ten months later, that he had made the right decision when he had dismissed the Magistrates.

Bathurst anchored in Plymouth Sound on the 23rd April after a 210 day passage which had included a 21 day stop in King Georges Sound in SW Australia and a 26 day stop in Simons Town. One of James Hall's first actions was to dispatch another report [PAGE2070] to the Navy Board, which was dated the day of his arrival, giving his version of events in New South Wales. The Navy Board again forwarded this letter to the Colonial Secretary.

James Hall's next step was to start a correspondence with Lord Bathurst through his Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Robert Wilmot Horton M.P. The main purpose of this correspondence, which consisted of at least twelve letters from James Hall, was to justify his recent behaviour in New South Wales and obtain another posting as a Surgeon Superintendent of a convict ship. Initially Lord Bathurst was not very cooperative, but as the correspondence [PAGE2080] continued throughout the summer, he appeared to weaken and in September, having first insisted that James could only serve in a ship going to Van Diemens Land (Tasmania) he finally agreed to his appointment to the female convict ship Brothers, which was due to sail to both Van Diemens Land and New South Wales in December. As the reader will learn, he had reason to regret this decision.

James Hall's adventures in the female convict ship Brothers are the subject of the next section. As a background to these adventures, readers may find it of interest to glance through the correspondence referred to above, even if they do not wish to read James' somewhat lengthy prose in full.

CONVICT SHIP BROTHERS¹⁶

On 4th December 1823 James Hall sailed from the Medway for Hobart as Surgeon Superintendent on board the female convict ship Brothers.

One of the most difficult problems on board a female convict ship was the prevention of prostitution. Many of the convicts had followed this profession before being sentenced and the ship's crews were not slow to take advantage of the opportunities that were offered. The Master of the ship and the Surgeon Superintendent were jointly responsible for dealing with this problem, the former being in charge of the crew and the latter being responsible for the moral welfare and behaviour of the convicts.

James Hall seems to have taken his responsibilities in this matter seriously, because within ten days of sailing from England, while in the vicinity of Madeira, he had already upset some of the women convicts and a section of the crew. The immediate cause of the trouble was that he had ordered that the hair of one of the female convicts should be cut off as a punishment for immoral behaviour. Not only had this angered the other convicts, but it had also annoyed the 1st Mate, Mr Meach, who was currently enjoying the favours of this lady.

On the evening of 13th an incident took place in which, to quote James Hall's report, 'Six women conspired to murder me and did actually form a mutiny of an alarming nature, in which I was knocked down in the prison, beaten and kicked'. As with the case of Ann Rumsby there are differing opinions as to exactly what happened, but in this case the uncertainty was perhaps more understandable as most of the incident took place in total darkness.

According to James Hall's version of events, on the evening of 13th December two convicts warned him to be careful as some of the other women convicts were plotting to murder him. Perhaps unwisely he went down to the prison section of the ship (see Note F) [PAGE2010] and found it in total darkness. Having obtained some lights he went into the prison and saw that a woman convict called Russell appeared to be responsible for putting out the lights and he ordered her to come up on deck. She refused and once again managed to extinguish the lights. As he was unable to make Russell obey his orders he left the prison and went on deck to obtain the assistance of the Mr Meach, who, at that stage, had not revealed his involvement with the mutineers. They both reentered the prison and attempted to remove Russell. They were unsuccessful and James Hall decided that further reinforcements were needed. Instructing Mr Meach to keep an eye on Russell he turned to leave the prison. As he did he heard a cry of 'Give it to the B.....r' and was struck on the back of the neck which made him fall forward. He then received several more blows and was kicked. Picking himself up he managed to get out of the prison leaving Mr Meach behind. All these events took place in total darkness. On reaching deck he was joined by Capt Motley, the Master, and several other members of the crew. They reentered the prison and after a further struggle with Russell and other convicts, managed to restore order and light.

An immediate investigation established that six women had created the disturbance. These women, who were taken out of the prison and secured elsewhere, subsequently confessed to their actions and went on to say that Mr Meach had proposed that they should cause the disturbance and that he would reward them with a bottle of rum. James Hall then goes on to say that he also had proof of a series of crimes and misdemeanours that Mr Meach had committed. He claims that Meach had assisted one of the female convicts during the struggle in the darkened prison; he had spare keys which gave him and other members of the crew access to the prison area for the purposes of prostitution; he had threatened to murder him, either by throwing him overboard or shooting him; and finally it had been Mr Meach who had struck him on the back of the head during the prison disturbance.

As a result of this initial investigation, on the orders of James Hall, the six female prisoners were punished by confinement in the coal hole on a diet of bread and water (see Note G). In early January Mr Meach was suspended from duty for striking a female prisoner, possibly because she had given evidence against him. On arrival in Australia James Hall preferred Charges of Mutiny, Conspiracy and Assault against Mr Meach and in late May an inquiry into these charges was held before a Bench of Magistrates at Sydney.

In his deposition, supporting these charges, James Hall summed up the events described above. He was then followed by about twelve other witnesses, who fell into three groups. Four of them were ship's officers, four of them came from the group of six female convicts who had created the disturbance and of the remaining four, three were passengers and one a member of the crew. If one relates their evidence to the five crimes and misdemeanours that James Hall claimed that Mr Meach committed, it can be fairly summarised as follows. The evidence of all the ship's officers confirms that Mr Meach made threatening remarks about James Hall during the voyage and the evidence of two of them further confirmed that he both organised the disturbance and also assisted female convicts during this disturbance. Perhaps less reliably two of the female convicts also supported the charge that he organised the disturbance and assisted one of them during the fracas. The direct evidence that Mr Meach had a spare set of keys with which he released female convicts during the night, so that they could visit members of the crew, was provided by one of the officers and an able seaman who was one of the beneficiaries of this practice. The evidence supporting the charge that Mr Meach struck James Hall is not so strong. One of the officers claims that Mr Meach had told him 'I have given the old B---‑r a Pett on the neck' and supposed that this referred to James Hall, while two of the female convicts said he had been struck by one of their fellow convicts. There were also suggestions from other witnesses that James Hall did not appear to be badly injured after the incident.

Having listened to all the witnesses the Bench of Magistrates found that their evidence did not support the Charges of Mutiny or Conspiracy or Assault and therefore ordered that the Matter to be dismissed. They also awarded the defendant, Mr Meach, his costs.

On the face of it, it appears that James Hall had every right to be aggrieved by this decision. Meach may not have been guilty of Mutiny or Assault, but his behaviour certainly involved Conspiracy and he deserved some punishment. According to one source James Hall was so dissatisfied with the decision that he brought a civil action against Mr Meach, which he also lost.

A possible reason for these unjust decisions is that the Magistrates concerned were political allies of the Governor and one of them had even been involved in a legal dispute with Samuel Marsden, which had resulted in a court case. We know that after his previous visit that the Governor had considered James Hall to be a troublemaker, and we also know that he still felt the same way about him, because in June 1824 he wrote a letter to the Colonial Secretary, saying that he understood that Mr Hall was planning to 'proceed to England and then make arrangements to return and Settle here with his Family'. He goes on to ask that Lord Bathurst should not support these plans, partly because of his involvement in the Ann Rumsby case and also because he had subsequently challenged the Colonial Secretary to a duel 'in the execution of his Official Duty'. Finally he added that he was enclosing a copy of the proceedings which had taken place lately by the Bench of Magistrates. His final remark, which seems rather unfair, states 'by which your Lordship will not fail to remark that, in this instance, he has again attempted to render his name conspicuous, and with equal success; but in the course of which, circumstances appear to have transpired, which do not reflect highly on his moral Character'.

The decision may also have been affected by the case of the Government Establishment at Emu Plains, which is described below, but it is not certain when the Governor learnt of James Hall's involvement in this affair.

THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT AT EMU PLAINS²¹

Before leaving Australia in the autumn of 1824 James Hall became involved in a final exchange with the Governor, Sir Thomas Brisbane. In May 1822 the Female Factory at Parramatta had been very crowded and as another Female Convict ship (probably the Mary Ann) was due shortly, it was decided to send about 30 female convicts from the Factory to the Government Establishment at Emu Plains where they could be employed at light field work. This arrangement was put into effect by Dr Douglass, whom we have met in the Ann Rumsby case.

Some time later, perhaps not until 1824 (the round trip for mail between Sydney and London could take at least eight months), news reached the authorities in Sydney that a report was circulating in England accusing the Government of the Colony for arranging the transfer of the Female Convicts from the Factory to Emu Plains for immoral purposes. Amongst the accusations in the report were the statements 'that the superintendent was verbally directed by the Colonial Secretary "not to allow more than seven men to have connection with one woman within the hour' and 'it had likewise been reported that the most scandalous and unblushing promiscuous intercourse was permitted between the Men and Women'. The feelings of the Governor and other members of the Government were in no way soothed when they heard unofficially from friends in England that the author of the report was none other than James Hall, who had caused them so much trouble over the Ann Rumsby case and was once again in Australia and currently taking legal proceedings against Mr Meach, 1st Officer of the Convict ship Brothers.

In August 1824, several months after his unsuccessful case against Mr Meach, James Hall learnt that he was suspected of being the source of the report about the goings-on at Emu Plains. He immediately wrote a letter to the Governor denying the accusations and seeking an interview with Sir Thomas Brisbane. In a letter after the interview he reaffirmed his innocence and ended with the following promise:

'I shall not, if it please God I arrive in England, in any manner mix myself up with subjects that do not concern me, at the same time I confess that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to communicate personally to His Majesty's Ministers my honest opinion of the worth, the integrity, and the amiable character of that distinguished officer, who rules this Colony, whose candour and suavity of manner have this day in no small degree compensated me for the anxiety, I have lately endured'.

It would be nice to be able leave matters here, with Sir Thomas Brisbane reassured by the expressions of goodwill from James Hall, but unfortunately it would be nearly another three years before James Hall and the Colonial Office finally ceased to exchange indignant and unfriendly letters with each other.

Having written his letter of reassurance to Thomas Brisbane, James Hall left New South Wales and arrived back in England in January 1825. On his return his first action was to apply to the Colonial Office to be considered for a medical post in Van Diemans Land. He failed to obtain this post and in April was appointed by the Navy Office to the Royal Naval Hospital Bermuda, where he took up his position in July 1825.

In the meantime the Emu Plains affair continued to develope. In the spring of 1825 Sir Thomas Brisbane received a letter from Lord Bathurst ordering the close supervision of the Emu Plains establishment. In a slightly delayed response to this letter Sir Thomas set up an inquiry in August to investigate the allegations against certain officers for the immoral behaviour that had been taking place at this establishment. The inquiry acquitted the officers concerned and its report was forwarded in September to the Colonial Secretary who would have received it around the end of 1825.

In the New Year Sir Thomas Brisbane and his Colonial Secretary returned to England. It seems likely that they would have discussed the Emu Plains affair with Lord Bathurst as their arrival would only have been shortly after he had received the report of the inquiry, however for over six months nothing happened. Then on 24^th November 1826 the Colonial Office wrote the following letter to the Commissioner of Victualling, who at that time was immediately responsible for Naval Surgeons.

From: COLONIAL OFFICE

To: COMMISSIONER OF VICTUALLING

Colonial Office

Downing Street Novr 24th 1826

Gentlemen

I have received the directions of Earl Bathurst to bring under your notice the very improper conduct of Mr James Hall who has been employed as Surgeon Superintendent on board several Convict ships which have proceeded to New South Wales under orders from the Navy Board.

During the latter part of Sir Thomas Brisbane's administration of that Colony several very serious charges were brought by Mr Hall as well as other individuals against the public characters of the Governor and Colonial Secretary, the falsehood of which having recently been most satisfactorily proved, Lord Bathurst deems it proper that you should be made acquainted with the conduct of Mr Hall on the occasion alluded to as his Lordship considers it to be so extremely reprehensible, as to render him undeserving of any further advancement in his profession, and would indeed (had Lord Bathurst been aware of the circumstances at the time of Mr Hall's arrival in England) have prevented his Lordship from sanctioning his further employment under any Department of the Government.

I am, Sir

R W Hay

Letters may have taken 3 months to come from New South Wales to England, but they moved fast within Whitehall. Four days later the Colonial Office had received the following reply from the Navy Office.

From: NAVY OFFICE

To: R W Hay, COLONIAL OFFICE

Received Nov 28 1826

The Navy Office

27 Nov 1826

Sir,

We have received your letter of the 24th instant bringing under our notice, by the direction of Lord Bathurst, the very improper conduct of Mr James Hall, who has been employed Surgeon of several Convict Ships which have proceeded under our orders to New South Wales, as connected with some very serious charges brought by him and other Individuals against the Public Characters of the Governor and the Colonial Secretary, which have proved unfounded and we acquaint you, in return, for his Lordship's information that Mr Hall is not now employed under this Board.

We are Sir

Your very humble Servants

R Topping H Legge Boyle

Apart from the speed of response, the remarkable aspect of this unhelpful reply was how Their Lordships could say that Mr Hall was ‘not now employed under this Board’ when he was busy working for them at the Royal Naval Hospital, Bermuda.

When this exchange of letters was written James Hall had been in Bermuda for more than a year. To continue this story we must now join James Hall in Bermuda.