Thursday, May 17, 2018

The LONG con: our comments on Julia Clark's fraudulent thesis


Julia Clark posing here with a horse
Source: (sorry lost link)

In 2015 this individual Julia Clark (b. 1949) submitted a thesis to the University of Tasmania in the hope of being awarded a PhD degree. The award, in our opinion, should be revoked. The many instances prior to this thesis where she has claimed - by means both fraudulent, deceitful and abusive - that A. H. Boyd photographed prisoners in Tasmania in 1874 when no evidence has ever existed, nor ever will - is examined in great deal across these weblogs about the life and work of Thomas J. Nevin. Without these Nevin weblogs, Julia Clark would have no thesis.

The first third of Clark's thesis was copied from the hundreds of books and articles on the subject of 19th century photography of prisoners; the middle third was an excuse to plagiarise the original research on these weblogs about Thomas J. Nevin's photographs of Tasmanian prisoners taken in the 1870s while abusing his descendants by name; and the last third of the thesis was copied from publications by Sue Hood at the Port Arthur Historic Site and her collaborator Hamish Maxwell Stewart at the University of Tasmania, the latter most obligingly supervising Clark's "thesis" with all its fantasies, sledging and fabrications. Her other supervisior, Stefan Petrow, whom she so warmly acknowledges as co-editor, was born in Hobart, according to the Tasmanian Historical Research Association's website, viz.
Stefan Petrow was born in Hobart. Stefan is an Associate Professor in the School of History and Classics at the University of Tasmania and has been a member of THRA since 1990. He has served two three-year terms as President.
It is so re-assuring to learn that Stefan Petrow was not born in some Nazi-infested Eastern European hell-hole, and that he must have learnt English from a very early age. So how come this sentence in Julia Clark's thesis passed his approval (p. 151)?
A descendant of Nevin’s, Dr Kerry Williams, has assiduously promoted the claims of Thomas Nevin, whom she believes to be her ancestor ...
Can a descendant of an ancestor not be their ancestor's descendant, is that semantically possible? No, it is not. Kerry Williams is genetically blessed with the good looks, good fortune and intelligence of all her ancestors, and especially her maternal great grandparents, great grandfather Thomas J. Nevin, maternal great grandmother Elizabeth Rachel Nevin nee Day and their respective ancestors, including Thomas'father poet John Nevin snr and Elizabeth's uncle,master mariner Captain Edward Goldsmith. Julia Clark is an idiot to imagine such a statement has any validity in any context, yet she appears so fond it she has repeated it time and again in print. Stefan Petrow's "eagle-eyed" editing, to quote Clark (page 4), might have missed this nasty little sentence in Clark's thesis (p.151), or indeed he may well have condoned it, given the malice and hostility Clark has mustered towards Nevin in the pursuit of this PhD degree. Since the THRA committee is most keen to inform us that Petrow was born in Tasmania, he would be acutely aware of how distressing misinformation about one’s ancestry can be, yet apparently not when it comes to the one historical figure who is central to his research on 19th police in Tasmania - photographer Thomas J. Nevin (1842-1923).

THE THESIS as retrieved in February 2017 from the University of Tasmania:
'Through a Glass, Darkly’: the Camera, the Convict Life and the Criminal'
by Julia Christabel Clark B.A. (Hons.)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D)
University of Tasmania
November 2015
Our Comments and Annotations
How to access the text to which these comments refer: just open this document here which is the thesis (or embedded doc below) as it was retrieved from the University of Tasmania in February 2017 and annotated at that time with the comments below. Each yellow bubble inserted on the page listed below by number contains at least one of these comments as an annotation to the text. The comments therefore need to be read concurrently with the thesis.

When Julia Clark attended the PhD ceremony in August 2016 to accept the award, she was introduced with this statement, which she had crafted herself:
"Deputy Chancellor, I present to you Julia Clark. Dr. Clark identified the probable photographer of Port Arthur's last convicts as camp commandant A. H. Boyd..."
Boyd is the theme, the core, as Clark sees it, despite 200 pages of extraneous padding.The word "probable" is as laughably inaccurate regarding the bully A. H. Boyd as the thesis is disturbingly vituperative and malicious towards the living descendants of the only REAL photographer of Tasmanian prisoners in the 1870s, T. J. Nevin. The award should have been withheld, and this thesis should not be available online via the UTas library. Clark has extended her resentment of Nevin to harassing his living descendants and encouraging others to post online abusive misinformation of Nevin ancestry. This and the thesis constitute misconduct of the first order.

Image caption, title page:
Why is the QVMAG catalogue number missing from here and on the other four images in this thesis? "PROBABLY" is neither a curatorial term nor a publisher's - "attributed to .." is the usual wording. The few repros in this thesis are of exceptionally poor quality, and the choice of this image in no way proves the Boyd attribution.

Footnote, title page:
Irrelevant and unexplained religious reference, supposedly signifying Clark as a believing Christian, a good person who would never lie or cheat or abuse or defraud.....

Clark's infringement of copyright in this thesis is extensive: the first third of the thesis dealing with theory has been copied and regurgitated from Jager, Tagg et al; the body of the thesis, the second third, is derived from the weblogs online since 2005 created by descendants of the photographer Thomas J. Nevin, but with distortions, lies, fabrications of sources, suppression of facts, personal abuse, and fraudulent claims; the last third of the thesis is a jolly japes account of naughty convicts' offences copied from Sue Hood et al publications issued at Port Arthur. Clark openly thanks Susan Hood for writing the thesis for her when Clark was employed at the Port Arthur heritage site as an "Interpretations" manager (see "Acknowledgments".) This thesis is a highly idiosyncratic fantasy which bears little relation to historic reality.

Clark's signature and date: The PhD rules specifically state that the limitation on time taken to submit the thesis is 5 years: Clark was enrolled in the PhD program already by 2007, according to what she told Margy Burn at the NLA, and which I repeated in a complaint about both Clark and Burn to the Commonwealth Ombusdman and Aust Copyright Council, so her term exceeded 5 years when she submitted this thesis in November 2015, and it was not accepted until March 2016. That's 8 years. The award is therefore highly irregular, illegal even.

The 350 "convict portraits" - ie the police mugshots of prisoners taken by T. J. Nevin at the Hobart Gaol, were not created at Port Arthur in 1873-1874. The extant bundle of cdvs which are inscribed on the versos "Taken at Port Arthur 1874" were inscribed in 1915 by J W Beattie as tourism propaganda for the Tas Gov't. Clark's thesis is also at base nothing more than tourism propaganda for the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, her former employer. She "wrote" most of the thesis in her employer's time to impress Board members and other staff.

A convenient pretense by Clark to ignore the facts about Thomas J, Nevin online since 2005 at

These are NOT EPHEMERAL sites. Each post was and can still be retrieved as hard copy paper print.

There is no PROBABILITY whatsoever, no proof, no evidence, no reason or justification to believe such a proposition. Clark needs to define in percentage terms her use of this concept "probable", because she gives NO PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE that A. H. Boyd ever took a photograph of anyone amongst all the padding she puts around her argument in his name. What IS evident here is the pitfall that heritage site workers fall into: they have an old cottage, and so stuff it to the rafters with every old object at hand to create atmosphere, calling the mishmash an "interpretation". The Port Arthur site is a prime example; Runnymede is another, and so is Mawson's Hut in Hobart, all full of stuff that never belonged to the house, and its owners. Clark's thesis is stuffed to the rafters with material derived from everywhere. There is nothing ORIGINAL, nothing AUTHENTIC about the so-called research. It is simply an excuse to vent maliciousness around the names of Thomas Nevin, and Dr (Kerry) Williams for no discernible reason other than wanting to punish T. J. Nevin for not being a transported convict, and his great granddaughter Kerry Williams for not being black (Aboriginal, mullato, colored), both identities being so dear to Clark as a source of exploitation.

Nonsense. The photographs were taken at the Hobart Gaol by Nevin for the police, and copies were circulated to regional gaols, including Port Arthur,

again, rubbish.

Maxwell Stewart's use of statistics would have been useful in helping Clark define the concept "probable". Stefan Petrow must be petty-minded to have approved the vituperations directed at Kerry Williams and Nevin expressed in Clark's various ungrammatical sentences.

Clark thanks Stefan Petrow's "eagle-eyed editing" - does that include her ungrammatical sentences, her personal sledging of Dr Kerry Williams, her fabrications of primary sources ?

Clark's communications with these people - eg. Carr, Davies, Farmery, Long, and Rieusset - centred on garrnering negative comments about Kerry Williams. None of these library and museum workers gave her information that was not already

"so long" - yes, without the Nevin weblogs which appeared online in 2005, Clark would not have a thesis.

The bulk of this thesis, pages 29-173, has been derived from ideas, images, texts etc in the weblogs online about Thomas J. Nevin. Clark has not personally contributed a single idea, image or text to the Nevin weblogs authors, nor have the weblog authors voluntarily contributed to her publications and thesis, SO SHE CANNOT CLAIM COLLUSION IN ANY FORM or DIRECTION with us. Her theft of our intellectual property is an emboldened and brazen pretension at setting herself up with academic credentials at our expense.

Inappropriate and irrelevant, suited to a fictional work, not a thesis. Clark had no interest in the "convict photographs" prior to contact with Kerry Williams in 2005.

Here we are again at a heritage site with a heritage site worker: without a mystery there can be no ghost tour; without a mystery photographer Clark has no argument: it's a fallacious set-up from the start.

Boyd is given his full name, but not Nevin. Clark shows NO RESPECT ANYWHERE IN THIS THESIS TO NEVIN, to his work,to his family,to his descendants, nor to those experts, curators etc, who have provided research on Nevin and his accreditation to the mugshots since the 1970s.

Quite of a few of the extant photographs of prisoners show men who were "native" - locally born - and not pre-1853 transportees - who were sent to Port Arthur after being photographed at the Hobart Gaol from 1871, and returned again to the Hobart Gaol in 1873. And quite a few men in the photographs never went to Port Arthur.

There are no mysteries about mugshots taken in 1874 or 1974 or 2014. They all served the same purpose.

PAGE 13:
Clark co-opts the reader with this assumption from the outset, so why waste 300 pages of a PhD thesis pretending there's a "mystery"?

Many hundreds (400) more photographs and prints of Tasmanian prisoners are extant in public collections, dated from Nevin's first commission in 1872 to his last in the late 1880s.

This is NOT a "fact": Beattie and Searle wrote "Taken at Port Arthur 1874" on the cdv versos in 1915 as tourism propaganda for the international and interstate market when copies were displayed on the fake hulk Success in Hobart, Sydney etc.

PAGE 28:
The copyright owners of all this material which Clark has "summarised" should take a close look for her numerous infringements.

PAGE 29 Chapter 2:
Image caption: Why is the catalogue and call number at the NLA not noted here? The captions used by Clark underneath the four images are amateurish. For a thesis ABOUT photographs, photographs are noticeably absent, and the four which have been included are all erroneously labelled. Here again is the ridiculous premise "Photographer: probably Commandant A. H. Boyd" More about the NLA further on.

The foregone assumption again that the prisoners were photographed at Port Arthur, leaving no room for a fair consideration of the alternative.

PAGE 30:
Photographer T. J. Nevin was at Port Arthur in February 1872; in August 1873; in May 1874; in December 1875; etc

Which photographs? They all have catalogue numbers, so why are they not listed by collection, institution, numbers etc?

PAGE 48:
This description of deviancy perfectly applies to Clark's own behaviour since 2005; Her hostility directed at Nevin and his descendants she has sought to share with librarians, museum and heritage site workers, and now uses this thesis as a further conduit.

PAGE 58 Chapter3:
Image caption: This cartoon appeared in specific contexts in several publications from the 1870s (Sydney Morning Herald etc), to web sites, so where are references?

PAGE 66:
Footnote: Jager appeared on the Nevin weblogs in 2007; Clark misuses the reference without checking the original text.

PAGE 75:
Clark has sourced this from the Nevin weblogs without checking the source.

PAGE 80:
This extended discussion of the governor Gardner taking photographs himself at Bristol prison forms the basis of the assumption that A H. Boyd at Port Arthur did the same. It is a forced comparison, without proof of any kind in Boyd's favour.

PAGE 98:
They are not "Port Arthur photographs". They are Hobart Gaol photographs.

PAGE 101:
The post in 2008 on the Nevin weblogs which included this Act was so aggressively hacked by Clark et al that we had to repost it and block her ISP.

PAGE 139 Chapter 5:
From this page on - until Clark moves into detailing the jolly escapades in the last chapters of these naughty convicts of whom she is so fond - from here on page 139 to page 250, Clark has availed herself of every detail she could squeeze dry from our Thomas Nevin web sites. Theft of our intellectual property is just the half of it - a dozen lies appear on every page where Nevin's name is mentioned.

Thomas J. Nevin ran two studios and collaborated with five professional and amateur photographers from 1864 through to the late 1880s. He worked closely with police and the HCC administration from 1872 until 1888, commissioned by the Surveyor-General James CALDER and the Attorney-General W.R. GIBLIN.

Footnote: Clark got lucky at the NLA. The NLA valuer of 19th century photographs, Warwick Reeder, had made the error of copying Chris Long's published error about Boyd (1992), for his thesis. When Reeder met Kerry Williams at the NLA in 2001, he became most anxious to cover up the error. He used Clark at Port Arthur to write this pathetic article so that he could have the NLA apply it to every online entry of their collection of 83 "Port Arthur convicts" photographs. It was a serendipitous opportunity that could validate Reeder's MA thesis to make his Boyd attribution to appear to be correct after all.

PAGE 140:
Clark the gambler, the gossip, the gleaner - she has proved nothing about these Tasmanian prisoner photographs that would merit the rhetoric about Boyd.


PAGE 142;
If Clark can't find it, it never existed, that's her modus operandi.

PAGE 143:
There's no case for a hypothesis. These accounts originate in ignorance, poor research, lazy self-referential citations within the photohistory culture, underscored by their social pretension as art historians.

PAGE 144:
I reviewed all these late 2oth century publications in 2007 on the Nevin weblogs; each had repeated the rumour spread in the 1980s about Boyd photographing prisoners, published first by Chris Long, repeated by Reeder, Ennis, Crombie, etc, none of whom bothered to check the validity of the rumour, which was just hearsay in any case, and which is all that it remains.

Clark has fabricated this business about the photographic house and the dates 1872, 1874, hoping that her BA credentials in Archaeology give the lie some validity. She needs to supply the authentic documents.

PAGE 146:
There was no planned ad hoc personalised amatuer PROJECT by Boyd. The COMMISSION to use the commercial photographer T. J. NEVIN on government contract was settled in February 1872 by W. R. Giblin Tas A-G at the visit by the former Premier of Victoria and the Victorian Attorney-General.

PAGE 147:
Not Boyd's OWN equipment. These documents in no way prove that Boyd ever took a single photograph, whether of a person,a prisoner, or a landscape. Where is Woolley's 1866 cdv of Boyd? Is Clark so MEAN-FISTED that she hasn't bought a copy for her thesis? The baby Boyd she talks about in a run down of his biography is spoken of in tones second only to the baby Jesus. Of course, she doesn't mention that he was sacked from the Orphan School New Town for MISOGYNY - in 1864 - to warrant dismissal because of misogyny in those Victorian times would indicate he must have been a real bastard.

The inscription with Boyd's name on this photograph is fraudulent, written in 1984 by Susan Hood and/or Chris Long.

PAGE 148:
Clark just hasn't looked for the right documents and dates, so of course she hasn't found anything, She is just repeating idle chat by Chris Long who dreamed up this prerequisite of a tender.

PAGE 149:
There is no record in the Tas Police Gazettes of this John Smith - Clark has fabricated this little tidbit to further weigh her argument towards Boyd. Boyd DID NOT photograph prisoners - end of story so any of these little speculative tidbits are fragments of hope from Clark's desperate imagination.

PAGE 150:
Try harder.

Poor Nevin, on trial for being a real photographer, whereas A. H. Boyd, a tyrant and bully who never photographed a living person or indeed anything at all, is the GOLDEN BOY for Clark and her cronies at the Port Arthur Heritage site. Nevin had three master mariner in-laws in his wife's family, with whom he voyaged from ports as far south as the Tasman peninsula to intercolonial ports.

PAGE 151:
This is the famous RUMOUR from Boyd descendants.

This sentence is an example of Clark's poor control of the English language. It is a semantic contradiction, approved by her proof reader Stefan Petrow. It's Clark with her toxic emotions way out of control, so desperate is she to "kill" Nevin. Kerry, for anyone who wants to know, is a direct genetic descendant of Thomas J. Nevin and Elizabeth Rachel Day, a great granddaughter and one of hundreds of their descendants.

All of our "evidence" on the Nevin websites is meticulously supported with original historical documents and original historical photographs sourced from public and private collections. This is the multimodal future of "evidence" - NOT the format of the traditional thesis with footnotes which the reader has to chase from one page to the next, or worse, to the appendices. Worse still, the reader is coerced into believing the footnote refs are real because the originals are never included or printed along with the assertion by the thesis writer that the reference is valid and the document referenced actually exists. This thesis by Clark is devoid of any supporting authentic historical document. The four images are so poorly reproduced, they are barely recognizable. It is a bizarre document, written with much hostility towards the subject, and shows no evidence that Clark actually conducted any original research of her own.

Footnote: his URL which Clark cites - "" was never owned by Dr Kerry Williams. Nor has it ever existed.

Clark is delusional if she thinks her off-hand remarks and casual lies denying her extensive use of our Nevin web sites are to be believed. We have not deleted any post since transferring from NY based Blogharbor in 2003 to our two current hosts in April 2007. We have recorded more than 5000 clicks every few months, year in, year out, since 2005, by Clark from her ISP and from the ISP at Port Arthur on the hundreds of our lengthy posts detailing Nevin's work on the mugshots at these URLS -

PAGE 152:
Really? Who is Clark trying to blame for "tricking" the world into believing Nevin took the 1870s Tas mugshots?

This claim is fabricated by Clark to pretend a lie was afoot. No one claimed these prison mugshots printed in cdv mounts were all stamped verso with a studio stamp, Nevin's or any one else's, though Nevin stamped one per bundle of a 100 for copyright and govt contract commission.

Footnote: Sylvia Carr was not especially conversant with the history of the NLA's acquisition of the "Port Arthur convicts" photographs, as they call them - in fact, no one on the NLA staff had ever bothered to consult the original files which I discovered and photographed there located in Manuscripts in 2015 to establish once and for all that the NLA DOES hold the documents pertaining to Nevin's attribution as the photographer of the NLA's collection of prisoner mugshots.

PAGE 153:
Alan Davies said no such thing to me when I visited the SLNSW in 2009 to photograph the 11 prisoner photos catalogued in Nevin's name held there. Clark has NOT provided the SLNSW's Mitchell Collection catalogue or call number for those eleven mugshots, neither here in the text of the thesis nor in the bibliography, but she described my photos online of those prisoner cdvs taken in 2009 to talk down Nevin in her article published in 2010. No thanks was extended, no courtesy, no permission requested to me by Clark - just the usual psychotic vituperations we have come to expect from her.

PAGE 154:
Clark says the file is lost. She PROBABLY (her favourite modality) removed it permanently from the Tas Archives Office to make it "lost".

The onus is on Clark to produce the exact historical document from TAHO for this reference. Otherwise she has fabricated it to cover her prevarications, or her "bet each way" as she so crudely phrases it.

Footnote: The Town Hall keeper, Mr Lonergan gave me (Kerry) a guided tour in April 2012 of the Mayor's Court and the police cells which were located in the Town Hall basement. Nevin was both Office and Hall Keeper for the HCC, and photographer for the central Hobart Municipal Police Office located on the other side of the entry hall of the Town Hall where he photographed prisoners on arrest and discharge. This footnote 673 demonstrates Clark's ignorance of the courts system, the function of the Municipal Police Office, and an ugly willingness to badmouth me -"Dr Williams" - while attempting to discredit any aspect of Nevin's working life.

All of the prisoners were photographed at Hobart, in the Supreme Court at the Hobart Gaol and at the Mayor's Court, Town Hall. The inscription "Taken at Port Arthur 1874" on the versos of about 300 in the bundle originating from the QVMAG were inscribed in 1915 by Beattie and Searle, displayed on the (fake) hulk Success in Hobart, Sydney etc to promote local and interstate tourism to the Port Arthur ruins. Clark is in the same business - tourism spin, most important to the World Heritage application that PAHSMA was hoping to gain when Clark began her Boyd or anti-Nevin project. Claiming that a record does not exist simply because she says she hasn't found it is childish. Lies, deception, fake claims, fraud - there's not much Clark will not lie about.

PAGE 155:
Clark needs to submit the original documents from TAHO to support these claims.

The Town Hall porter was promoted into the Hall keeper position in 1881. Nevin was Hall and Office Keeper for the HCC from 1876 to 1880, police photographer from 1872 to 1888. Here again is Clark's pathetic attempt to denigrate Nevin. Whose serious drinking problem is at issue here? Sad Julia Clark's, it seems, looking at this thesis which appears to have been written by a sanctimonious drunk. Attempting to write a PhD thesis is in her declining years when her mental faculties were never good from the beginning, is sad. What happened way back when she was sacked from the National Portrait Gallery for lies and deception?

One wonders about sanctimonious Julia Clark who sees the world through alcohol. Through A Glass Darkly in fact, as the thesis title she has chosen tells us.

PAGE 156:
Clark is deliberately confusing the several different people called Thomas Nevin in Hobart in these years, including his son, Thomas James Nevin jnr, born 1874 while Nevin was at Port Arthur photographing convicts.

Thomas Nevin died in his 81st year in 1923. He was remembered fondly as healthy and active by his grandchildren who were still living at the time of our Nevin web sites appearing online. Boyd by contrast was a belligerent drunk who died when he fell of his horse before his 65th birthday.

Here we go on the ghost tour again - "shrouded" and "mystery: - where would Clark be without these words and the word "probable".

Ahh, so touching, second only to the baby Jesus.

PAGE 157:
No, he was sacked for MISOGYNY, quite a feat.

So true, no mention or association of Boyd with photography because HE WASN'T A PHOTOGRAPHER

PAGE 158:
Prolific? Rubbish. No photographs have ever been attributed to Boyd before this nonsense appeared in the 1980s from amateurs such as Long and Reeder and Wishart, each demonstrably resentful of mainland academics such as Prof. Joan Kerr et al.

PAGE 159:
He did not have a studio - this is a fabrication by Clark after Long.

PAGE 160:
What? He was sacked for misogyny in 1865, and corruption in 1873.

PAGE 161:
Contradictory statements proliferate in this thesis, this example is typical.

PAGE 162:
So where are the photographs by A. H. Boyd' supposedly taken by him of his family etc? Not one single portrait of a Boyd family member supposedly taken by him has ever been included in any publication on this topic of Boyd's supposed talent for the medium. The reason? Simple. He wasn't a photographer.

No man in prison uniform has ever been photographed by A. H. Boyd. No such photograph exists which can be attributed to A. H. Boyd.

PAGE 163:
Only if you want to believe in this furphy. Boyd did NOT photograph any single person, male, female, prisoner, visitor - not one photograph supposedly by him has ever been validated.

PAGE 165:
Clark needs to produce the original document from TAHO for this statement.

PAGE 166:
Our Nevin web sites have documented dozens of prisoners' criminal careers in and out of the Hobart Gaol. Only Clark wants to force the cliche by association "Tasmania + convicts= Port Arthur" because it's good for PAHSMA's business of tourism. Facts only get in the way of a good story, or in this case, a phony thesis.

PAGE 171 Conclusion
It is not likely and certainly not probable that A. H. Boyd photographed prisoners at Port Arthur in 1873-4. The proposition is a fantasy spin for tourists, nothing more. Clark should be warned that if she keeps telling this story, she risks making a terrible fool of herself and those she corrals as supports (her cohort of deviants), and that if she keeps up the personal abuse directed at Dr. Kerry Williams, she is liable to process in civil action.

PAGE 173 Chapter 6:
Image caption: Again, no NLA ctalogue number. The repro is terrible. Fancy, a thesis about photos and the repros are rubbish, all four of them in a document of more than 300 pages.

There is NO MYSTERY.

PAGE 175:
They were photographed at the Hobart Gaol by T. J. Nevin, govt contractor.

PAGE 246 Chapter 8:
Image caption: Another poorly captioned image intended to deceive. no NLA call no. or catalogue no., no information about the prisoner etc.

The whole opening paragraph is a travesty of the facts about these photographs. A. H. Boyd DID NOT sit these men down to photograph them - this is fake history. It is an outrageous example of politically driven corporate psycopathy devised and promulgated by the PAHSMA board to consolidate their academic credibility. Poor Julia Clark really believes she has done them a favour.  Her cosy fantasy is an attempt to endear herself with flattery to the Port Arthur Historic Site board members who have colluded in this travesty, eg. Michael Field, who is both a PAHSMA board member and the University of Tasmania Chancellor.

PAGE 341: Bibliography
This photograph and its various copies and duplicates housed in Anson albums all appear on the Nevin web sites, photographed by Kerry Williams at the SLNSW Mitchell Library in 2009. Clark has used our photograph without our attribution or permission in the thesis [see photo below].

PAGE 370:
This article is a travesty of academic research. Clark's research MO is gossip, gambling and gleaning, a pathetically pretentious attempt at spinning propaganda for the Port Arthur heritage site using the Nevin web sites .

PAGE 378:
Guess what's missing!!!
Nevin, Thomas J. (1842-1923) at -

Since Clark sourced so much information, inspiration and motivation to attempt a thesis from gouging out the eyes of the extensive web sites about the REAL photographer of the so-called "Port Arthur convicts", at -

- it is a thing of wonder that she deliberately suppresses the bib. references. It is what it is - fraud.

PAGE 380:
What is significant by absence here is the name of Dr Kerry Williams - the emails from Clark re Nevin 2005. After all, there would be no thesis without Clark's first contact with the Nevin web sites and Nevin descendants such as Dr Kerry Williams. That brief contact seemed to incite such a singular deep resentment in Clark that she chose the totally inappropriate vehicle of a PhD degree to vent it.

The fake attribution - photograph with A. H. Boyd's name added in pencil in 1984
Ref: Mitchell Library, SLNSW
Views in Tasmania, Vol. II, ca. 1885-1894 / Anson Brothers.
PXD 511/no. 10 ‘Port Arthur during convict occupation’
Taken at the SLNSW
Photo copyright © KLW NFC 2009 ARR

RELATED POSTS main weblog

Monday, April 30, 2018

John Nevin snr and family 1851-1854: shipping documents

John NEVIN: the ship Fairlie July 1852
Miss Mary NEVIN: the ship Columbus October 1854
Mr James and Mrs Mary NEVIN: the ship Kingston August 1854

Former soldier of the Royal Scots First Regiment, John Nevin snr (1808-1887), his wife Mary Ann Nevin nee Dickson (1810-1875), and their four children all under 12 years old (Thomas James, Mary Ann, Rebecca Jane and William John) boarded the convict transport Fairlie at Gravesend, England on the 22nd February 1852 bound for Hobart, Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania). John Nevin snr worked the family's passage as one of 30 out-pensioner guards of the 294 convicts on board.

Details of the family's movements in the decade between John Nevin's medical discharge in Canada from the Royal Scots in 1841 and the family's immigration to VDL in 1852 are sketchy. His return to the British Isles as a Chelsea pensioner on being invalided out in 1841 was followed by his marriage soon afterwards to Mary Ann Dickson (b. 1810 England) who had moved to Newtonards, Ireland with her brother, nurseryman Alexander Dickson. He pursued the vocation of gardener in his wife's brother's business, Alexander Dickson's nurseries at Newtonards, taught school, and contributed to journals with surveyor John Hurst, proprietor of the Freeman newspaper. The births of their four children from August 1842 when Thomas James was born, followed by the births of the two daughters Mary Ann in 1844 and Rebecca Jane in 1847, and just prior to departure, the birth of William John in County Antrim in 1851, were all registered in Ireland. If John Nevin's  poem "My Cottage in the Wilderness" published in 1868 at Hobart, contains factual autobiographical information, he spent an unprofitable and unhappy time at the Californian Goldfields before returning  to his "partner" and children in Tasmania no later than 1854. By the time of his death in his beloved garden at Kangaroo Valley, Hobart, in 1887,  his occupation was registered simply as "gardener". His old friends from the Royals, for their part however, who published his obituary in the Mercury, 11th October 1887, were keen to praise first and foremost his good nature, his military history, and his literary achievements.

Had John and Mary Nevin and their four children arrived in London before the 15th October 1851, or indeed been resident there in the previous months while preparing for the long voyage, they would have seen hundreds of items from Van Diemen's Land to excite their interest at the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations at the Crystal Palace, Hyde Park.

Detail from plate above, representing the Van Diemen's Land display. Exhibits visible here included framed pictures, animal skins and textiles.

THE CATALOGUE 1851: VDL Exhibits
Title Official descriptive and illustrated catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851., v.2.
Author; Great Exhibition
Edition; New ed.
Published; London:Spicer Brothers,[1851]
Description v. :ill., plates (some col., some fold.)
Rights; Public Domain, Google-digitized.
Permanent URL; pages 992-999

EXTRACT from the Catalogue,

Page 992:
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. South Area, S. 81. The general character of the productions of the Tasmanian colony resembles that of the others, and is principally remarkable for the number and interesting nature of the products contained in the first four classes of the Exhibition. The exceptions are, however, more numerous than in some other instances. Some interesting and attractive articles of furniture, turned out of richly-marked woods, are presented to notice, and may prove instrumental in directing the attention of decorative furniture makers to the capabilities of the materials for the construction of furniture in England.
Page 996:
DENISON, His Excellency Sir W. T. 188 Six tanned skins of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus. The platypus of the colonists. The fine fur under the coat of long hairs upon its back is said to be equal to the fur of beaver for hat -making. [The Ornithorhynchus is peculiar to Australia and Tasmania, and combines with the hair and fur of a mammalian quadruped, the webbed feet and the beak of the duck, whilst the male has spurs on the hind legs like a cock. In its internal anatomy the Ornithorhynchus offers many marks of resemblance to both birds and reptiles, and forms the nearest link in the mammalian series to the oviparous classes.— R. O.]

Above: Dickinson Brothers - Dickinsons' comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851
The Crystal Palace from the northeast during the Great Exhibition of 1851.
Source: Dickinson's Comprehensive Pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851, from the originals painted for ... Prince Albert, by Messrs. Nash, Haghe and RobertsPublished: LondonCreated: 1854 Format: Book / Illustration / ImageCreator: Louis Haghe, Joseph Nash, David Roberts Usage terms: Public Domain Held by: British Library Shelfmark: Cup.652.c.33., volume 2 British Library

The ship "Fairlie" in brief
This barque was built by the yard of J. Gilmore, Calcutta for the account of John Biddulph. On the 5th June 1811 the ship was launched under the name FAIRLIE. It was a Class A two-decked vessel. The height between decks was 5.11ft., the tonnage was 698 86/94 tons (bm), and dimensions 106.0 x 35.3 x 17.1ft

On the 4th June 1812 the Fairlie was chartered by the East India Company for a round voyage to Bengal, under the command of Captain Peter d’Esterre. The charter terminated on 3rd June 1814. On the 22nd May 1815 she was chartered again by the British East India Company for a round voyage via Madeira to Bengal under the command of Captain Thomas E.Ward. The charter finished on the 5th November 1816. Her last voyage for the British East India Company under the same command was chartered on 1st April 1818 for a round voyage to Bengal and Bombay. The charter finished on 8th June 1819.

In 1824 the Fairlie was sold to David Gordon, and traded to India as a licensed ship. In 1833 she was under the command of Captain J. Cromartie. She sailed on 27th October 1833 from England with 376 convicts for Australia under the command of Captain Henry Ager. After a passage of 111 days she arrived at New South Wales on 15th February 1834. During the passage four (4) convicts died. After disembarking she sailed for England.

The Fairlie then sailed from London on 4th April 1840 with cargo and 266 passengers under the command of Edward Garrett, RN. And via the DOWNS on 6th April she set course for Australia, arriving at Port Adelaide on 7th July 1840. One of the passengers James Bowley kept a diary during that voyage. In 1843 she was sold to Joseph Soames at London.

On the 11th March 1852 she sailed from Plymouth with 294 convicts on board under the command of Captain Ed Pavey, arriving on 3rd July 1852 at Hobart. John Nevin and his family were on board. In 1865 the Fairlie was transferred to the Merchant Shipping Co. Ltd., London and in sold in 1866 for breaking up or use as a convict hulk.

Further reading and disambiguation of the ship's name Fairlie can be found here at Ships Stamps UK:

Embarcation: 22nd February 1852
The records below list the names of the convict guard, their wives and their children who embarked on the Fairlie at Gravesend on 18th - 22nd February 1852:

Tasmanian State Archives
Nominal Return of a convict guard on the ship Fairlie 18 Feb 1852
Accession No. 376/164

Above: Nominal Return of a Detachment who Embarked at Gravesend on board the Ship Fairlie being the remainder of the Convict Guard who Embarked at Woolwich. Gravesend 22nd February 1852. Rank and Name, No. Remarks
Private Jno Nevin

Above: Embarked at Gravesend, 22nd February 1852
Wives of the Convict Guard
Mary Nevin (wife of guard John Nevin)

Above and below:
Nominals Return of Children belonging to the men of the Convict Guards. Embarked on board the ship Fairlie Gravesend 22nd February 1852
Boys under 12 years; Thomas Nevin
Girls under 12 years: Mary A. Nevin, Rebecca Nevin
Under 1 year: Will J. Nevin

Boys under 12 years; Thomas Nevin
Girls under 12 years: Mary A. Nevin, Rebecca Nevin
Under 1 year: Will J. Nevin
Nominal return
ADRI: MB2/98/1/1
Source: Archives Office of Tasmania
Series: Nominal return of the convict guard on board the fairlie. (MB2/98) 18 Feb 1852 18 Feb 1852
Electronic resources: MB2-98-1-1
Available here:

29th February 1852: The Fairlie arrived at Spithead from Woolwich to take on convicts for Van Diemen's Lands. (“Naval Intelligence” “Portsmouth, February 29 “ (1852, March 1). Morning Post, (London, England).

2nd March 1852: Convicts from the hulks York and Sterling Castle embarked at Portsmouth Harbour. Boy prisoners from Parkhurst were put on board at Cowes. Sailed that evening (“The Navy” “Portsmouth, March 3 “(1852, March 4). Morning Chronicle, (London, England).

4th March 1852: "...put into the Sound on Thursday, on her way down the channel."(“The Navy” “Plymouth, March 6 “(1852, March 9). Morning Chronicle, (London, England).

9th March 1852: embarked prisoners from hulks at the Spithead. (“Naval Intelligence” “Portsmouth, Sunday “(1852, March 9). Kerry Examiner and Munster General Observer, (Kerry, Republic of Ireland).

10th March 1852: In the Sound. More than a thousand emigrants left for the colonies from the Plymouth that week. (“Naval Intelligence”, “Emigration“ (1852, March 10). Western Courier, West of England Conservative, Plymouth and Devonport Advertiser, (Kerry, Republic of Ireland).

11th March 1852: Fifty-two convicts had embarked from Dartmoor, probably days before. Sailed from Plymouth for Van Diemen's Land (“The Navy” (1852, March 12). London Evening Standard, (London, England).

Source: HAA007 Convict Ancestors Story - Evelyn Mitchell
Intro: Why I chose Samuel Sheepwash! [a convict on board the Fairlie 1852]

1852: Nevins on the "Fairlie" sick lists
Thomas James Nevin's father, John Nevin snr, born in 1808 at Grey Abbey, County Down, Ireland, with service in the West Indies (1825-1838) and Canada (1839-42), was one of 30 out-pensioners and guards travelling with the 99th Regiment on board the Fairlie when it left Plymouth on March 11th, 1852, bound for Hobart with 294 convicts. Thomas' mother Mary Ann Nevin nee Dickson was one of 24 women on board, and Thomas himself, together with his three younger siblings, Mary Anne, Rebecca Jane and William John were numbered among the 47 children. Among the convicts were 32 boys from the Parkhurst prison who had embarked at the Isle of Wight on March 2, 1852.

While conditions on board must have been rudimentary for women and children accompanying a crew member, for a mother and baby it must have been a floating hell. The medical officer for the voyage which began on March 2-11, 1852 recorded that prior to departure, on February 28th, both John Nevin and his wife Mary suffered diarrhoea, and were discharged from the list on the day of departure. Mary (Anne) Nevin, aged 5 yrs, was put on the sick list on the 23rd April. Her mother Mary Nevin (aged 40 [sic]), joined her daughter on the sick list a day later, on the 24th April. Both were listed in the "QUALITY" column with their status: child of guard and wife of guard.

Mary Nevin, aged 5, child of guard; Mary Nevin, aged 40, wife of guard.

William Nevin, aged 6 months, child of guard

Reference: ADM 101/27/2
Medical journal of convict ship Fairlie .
Admiralty and predecessors: Office of the Director General of the Medical Department of the Navy and predecessors: Medical Journals Convict Ships etc. Date: 1852. Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives [UK]

On the 2nd June, the babe in arms, William Nevin, aged 6 months, was also put on the sick list, "QUALITY" also listed as child of guard. As the sick lists indicate, they were named in the company of other wives and children of guards, and of convicts of all ages.

Folio 2: John Nevin, aged 43, Private of pensioners; sick or hurt, diarrhoea; put on sick list 28 February 1852, discharged 2 March 1852 to duty. Folio 2: Mary Nevin, aged 40, Wife of pensioners;

Folio 2: Mary Nevin, aged 40, Wife of pensioners; sick or hurt, diarrhoea; put on sick list 14 March 1852, discharged 25 March 1852 to duty.

Folio 4: Mary Nevin, aged 5, Child of Guard; sick or hurt, diarrhoea; put on sick list 23 April 1852, discharged 30 April 1852 to duty. Folio 4: Mary Nevin, aged 40, Wife of Guard; sick or hurt, diarrhoea; put on sick list 24 April 1852, discharged 14 May 1852 to duty.

Folio 5: William Nevin, aged 6 months, Child of Guard; sick or hurt, convulsio; put on sick list 2 June 1852, discharged 9 June 1852 to duty.

See the complete sick list for this voyage of the Fairlie 1852 in this article - click here.

Absent from the sick lists were the two other children of John and Mary Nevin - Thomas James (b. 1842), and his sister Rebecca Jane (b.1847). Whatever ailments they endured on the voyage apparently left few permanent effects on Thomas and his father: Thomas James Nevin (photographer) lived to the age of 81 yrs (d. 1923). His father John also lived to the age of 80, and remarried at the age of 71 to a 46 year old widow, Martha Salter nee Genge, soon after the death of his wife and mother of his four children, Mary Nevin nee Dickson (1810-1875), who lived just 65 years. However, the two sisters did not survive to the 20th century: Rebecca died in 1865, aged 18 years at Kangaroo Valley, Hobart; Mary Anne died in Victoria, aged 34 yrs shortly after her marriage in 1877 to John Carr and within a fortnight of giving birth to a daughter in 1878, and younger brother William John, known as Constable John Nevin and simply as Jack to the family, died of typhoid fever in 1891, aged 39 yrs. Jack joined the Prison administration at H. M. Hobart Gaol while still in his teens,and remained there until his untimely death, assisting his brother Thomas as the official photographer supplying convicts' identification cartes-de-visite mugshots for the Municipal Police Office and Prisons Department. Jack was variously enrolled as an elector with the name (Constable) John Nevin and William John Nevin, not to be confused with Thomas Nevin's son carrying the name into the next generation: William John Nevin, born in 1878, who died in 1927 in a horse and cart accident in Hobart.

Arrival at Hobart, VDL, July 3rd 1852
The Principal Medical Officer, Dr Edward Nollett (also spelt as Nolleth) reported no serious medical incidents had occurred during the voyage. Yet one child was still-born, vaccinations were attempted (unspecified types), and two prisoners were found to be nearly blind on disembarkation.

The barque Fairlie arrived in Hobart on July 3, 1852. On board were 292 male convicts, 30 pensioner guards with their families - 24 women and 47 children. In charge of the convict guard was Ensign Meagher for the 99th Regiment. Surgeon Edwarth Nolloth RN voyaged in the Cabin as did the religious instructor John B. Seaman and his wife. The Rev. Seaman reported:

July 13 [1852]
The arrangement and cleanliness of the Penitentiary, the courtesy of the officers, combined with the discipline exercised, will effect, it is hoped, the reformation of England's exiles.
(Signed) John B. SEAMAN, Queen's, Cambridge,
Religious Instructor of "Fairlie", C. S.
Religious instructor John B. Seaman, on visit to Male House of Correction, Hobart Town
Source:Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons and Command, Volume 54, page 19 

The Calcutta-built Fairlie, 775 tons and carrying two guns, had left Plymouth on March 11, 1852 with 45 crew. Cargo listed included 1 bag of despatches, 2 ropes, 8 leather bags, 1 ship bag and 1 small paper parcel. When the ship sailed into the River Derwent at Hobart and the pilot Mr Hurburgh boarded at 4pm, he reported the weather was fine, winds light, and the ship's draught was 18 feet.

The Port Officer's Form carried the REMARKS:
2 Deaths Convicts - 1 Birth - Female
And this note:
"The Pest Bomangee" was to leave [?] in about 3 weeks after this vessel sailed
"The Sylph". Sailed from Plymouth three days before.

Source: State Library of Tasmania
Series Number MB2/39
Start Date 24 Mar 1828
End Date 31 Dec 1970


"Copy of a DESPATCH from Lieut.-Governor Sir W. Dension to the Duke of Newcastle
Government House , Van Diemen's Land, May 5, 1853 [etc etc]
...inspection made by the principal medical officer of the convict ship "Fairlie" on her arrival in this port, and I would beg to draw attention to that portion of it which states that two of the men are nearly blind, and who will consequently become a permanent charge up on the convict establishment.
I have & (Signed ) W. DENISON [&&&]"
Below: Enclosure in No 10 Encl in No 10
Principal Medical Officer's Office July 5 1852


I HAVE the honour to report my inspection of the "Fairlie" male prison ship, surgeon superintendent, Dr Edward Nollett. The ship left Plymouth on the 11th March with 294 prisoners, under a guard of 30 out- pensioners, with 24 women and 47 children. They were generally healthy, the more prevalent complaints being diarrhoea and pulmonic affections. Two prisoners died, one from disease of the heart the second from pleurisy There were also two births, one still born. I observed two prisoners who (I am informed) were embarked nearly blind They are fit cases for an invalid depot, and I have directed their removal to the General Hospital, together with four other men who are in delicate health and unfit at present for labour. Vaccination was attempted but without success. The berths, decks, and utensils were clean, and in good order. I have etc The Comptroller General (Signed) A. SHANKS &c & &c Deputy Inspector General PMOReport of August 11, 1853:
Source: Parliamentary Papers By Great Britain Parliament. House of Common papers Vol 54

1854: Miss Mary Nevin on the ship "Columbus"
On 11th, July 1854, John Nevin snr, schoolmaster at Kangaroo Valley, paid £5 at Hobart for two single tickets for the passage of "R" indicating relatives (and not "Servants") on a "Family Ticket". No details of the passenger, the name of the ship or the origin of the journey are shown on this register.

Second name, page on left:
Application No. 450: 11th July 1854
John Nevin schoolmaster Kangaroo Valley
Payment for Family Ticket "R" = relative
Number issued: 2 single tickets
Payment received at Hobart Town £5

Source: Archives Office Tasmania
Link: Nevin John 1854 image 27
Source Citation: Register of applications for immigrants from Europe, of payments received and bounty tickets issues with some monthly and half yearly summaries; Film: SLTX/AO/MB/266; Series: CB7/30.

The fee of £5, according to the Immigration Department schedule of 1865 (Walch's Tasmanian Almanac 1865, page 86) was the amount to be paid for a single female, so who was the female immigrant who arrived in 1854? Or did John Nevin pay just an initial £5 for two single tickets, one in advance, one to be paid on arrival, or indeed were some of the costs pre-paid by the "R" - relative(s)?

Immigration DepartmentExtract from Walch's Tasmanian Almanac 1865: 86

The Commissioners of Immigration have issue the following Regulations for persons desirous of introducing servants or relatives from the United Kingdom, under the Bounty System adopted on the 21st December 1858: -
     An Immigrant resident in Tasmania who may wish to bring to the colony any relative from the United Kingdom, being a British subject, and being either a mechanic, domestic servant, or laborer, should apply to the Immigration Agent at Hobart Town or Launceston, in writing; and Bounty Tickets will be issued (subject to approval of the Commissioners) on the following rates of payment by the applicant: -
Family Ticket for man, wife (or either of them) with the children under 12 years at time of embarkation ------------------------ £15
Single Male Ticket --------------------- 10
Single Female Ticket -------------------- 5
The Tickets should be sent to the Agent appointed by the applicant in the United Kingdom, who will take the proper steps for procuring passages in vessels sailing direct to Hobart Town or Launceston, or to Melbourne, whence the emigrants will be forwarded to their destined port, and will in all cases be provided for at the expense of the ship owners until their friends may be enabled to receive them, provided that the period for such accommodation does not exceed fifteen working days from date of arrival.
The fee of £5, according to this schedule of 1865, was the fee to be paid for a single female. A single male ticket cost £10. Those fees were established with the Bounty System Regulations of 1858. Perhaps in 1854 they were cheaper when John Nevin paid £5 for two singles.

In this record (below) of the arrival at Hobart of the Columbus in October 1854, Miss Mary Nevin, 21 yrs old, a Roman Catholic from County Clare, unable to read or write (indicated by the word "none") was listed as a housemaid who could cook and wash linen. In several respects this was probably not the relative/family member whose ticket John Nevin funded in July 1854, firstly because she was from County Clare in the south west of Ireland, whereas John Nevin's family originated from Grey Abbey, County Down in the north, but more significantly, her religious affiliation was Roman Catholicism, whereas John Nevin's was Protestantism. He was a teacher at the Wesleyan Chapel, Kangaroo Valley (now Lenah Valley, Hobart) by 1854 where he built his cottage adjacent to the Lady Franklin Museum on land in trust to the Wesleyan Church.

Name: Nevin, Mary
Record Type: Arrivals
Title: Miss
Age: 21
Arrival date: 27 Oct 1854
Departure port: Plymouth
Ship: Columbus
Record ID:
Resource: CB7/12/1/2 Bk14 p90
Archives Office of Tasmania

This same single young woman, 21 year old Mary Nevin, housemaid, Roman Catholic, unable to read or write, from County Clare in southwest Ireland lodged two applications in her own name on behalf of two single men also from County Clare who arrived within weeks of each other in November 1855 as passengers on board the Emma to Hobart via Melbourne, viz:

 - David Maloney, single male, 24 years old, Roman Catholic, unable to read or write, a farm labourer, arrived on board the Emma, November 2, 1855 (primary document at page 41), and

- Hugh Nevin, single male, 22 years old, Roman Catholic, able to read and write, a farm labourer, arrived on board the Emma, November 30th, 1855 (primary document at page 45)

1854: James and Mary Nevin on the ship "Kingston"
Two other immigrants with the surname "Nevin" arrived at Hobart in 1854: James Nevin, 28 years old, and Mrs Mary Nevin, presumably his wife, 25 years old, arrived on 26th August 1854 from Southampton on board the Kingston.

Name: Nevin, Mary
Record Type: Arrivals
Title: Mrs
Age: 25
Arrival date: 26 Aug 1854
Departure port: Southampton
Ship: Kingston
Remarks: With husband James.
Record ID: NAME_INDEXES:1510960
Resource: CB712/1/2 Bk19 p290
Archives Office of Tasmania

In this record, James Nevin was listed as a 28 year old coachman and groom from County Derry, able to read and write. Mrs Mary Nevin was listed as a 25 year old housemaid from County Antrim, able to read. Both were registered as Presbyterians. In the remarks column of this record is written the comment "useful persons". These two were more likely to be the two "family ticket" holders for whom John Nevin paid an initial £5 on 11th July 1854, for these reasons: they originated from the north of Ireland, they were both literate, and their religious affiliation was Protestant rather than Roman Catholic. They were married three months before sailing, on 7th February, 1854 at County Coleraine, Ireland: James was the son of Samuel Nevin of Coleraine (1807-1879) and Mary was the daughter of Robert Hemphill. James Nevin may have been a nephew of John Nevin's - how they were "R" = related - is yet to be determined.

Source: See image for citation.

Page on left: James and Mary Nevin sailed from Southampton, England on board the Kingston. 843 tons, 4 guns, master R. L. Weeks, departing 26th May, 1854. They were "Gov't Emmigrants" among 35 married couples, 23 single men, 145 single women and 54 children.

Port Officers's Log
Arrival of the ship Kingston at the Port of Hobart Town 25 August 1854
Archives Office Tasmania
Ref: MB2-39-1-18 Image 137

Bounty immigrants, James and Mary Nevin listed as "Married with families: Nevin 2"
Ship Kingston arrivals in Hobart
Mercury 30 August 1854

The point here is to negate any speculation that the document above which shows John Nevin paid £5 for the passage of two relatives on a family ticket on 11th July 1854 is the actual same document that proves he paid for three members of the Hurst family who arrived on 3rd February, 1855 on board the Flora McDonald viz. John Hurst, 16 years old, a designer, with Eliza Hurst, 40 years old, a needlewoman, and 14 year old house servant Mary Jane, despite the claims of the author of a Wikipedia page about William Nevin Tatlow Hurst (viz. serial troll Karen Mather who also references irrelevant documents in pursuit of her claims). These are two separate events, two different dates, and two separate groups of passengers. Even if the Hurst and Nevin families had associations in both Ireland and Tasmania before and after both families emigrated, the  list clearly shows these three Hursts arrived in 1855, not 1854, at Launceston via Hobart.  So, if their sponsor was the same John Nevin (no address given on this document below) who had sponsored two emigrants on a family ticket the previous year, in 1854, the document cited above with his address at Kangaroo Valley ( Nevin John 1854 image 27) does not reference this document below dated 1855 which names the three Hursts:

Detail: of above: Hursts x 3 left hand page
Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, TA211 Immigration Agents Department, CB7/17/1/1 Alphabetical descriptive list of immigrants arriving under the indenture system – details of name, ship, marital state, age, religion, native place, trade & bounty paid, January 1854 to December 1856, Page 24, book no. 9, url=

Photograph of John Nevin (1808-1887) taken in 1873 by his son Thomas Nevin
Copyright © KLW NFC Imprint Private Collections 2003 ARR

RELATED POSTS main weblog

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Prisoner John APPLEBY 1873

PRISONER JOHN APPLEBY Tasmanian mugshots 1870s

Prisoner John Appleby, Hobart Gaol, Tasmania
Photographed by Thomas J. Nevin, September 1873
NB: The catalogue entry title was devised by the NLA from the verso inscription.
NB: The number "84" is missing from this catalogue entry.

National Library of Australia catalogue
"John Appleby, per Candahar, taken at Port Arthur, 1874"
Call Number PIC Album 935 #P1029/51
Created/Published 1874
Extent 1 photograph on carte-de-visite mount : albumen ; 9.4 x 5.6 cm., on mount 10.4 x 6.4 cm.

The verso (below) of this carte-de-visite of John Appleby held at the NLA is numbered "84" which was the number assigned to the copy made in the 1900s by John Watt Beattie from the glass negative of Thomas Nevin's original capture taken at the Hobart Gaol in 1873 where Appleby was transferred from the Port Arthur prison after his petition to the Governor was declined.

The inscription 'Taken at Port Arthur 1874" is Beattie's confabulation of facts in the name of tourism. Beattie prepared copies of these prisoner cdv's for display in his collection of Tasmanian convictaria at his "Port Arthur Museum" located at 51 Murray St. Hobart (and not at Port Arthur) to coincide with the first of two early 20th century film adaptations (1908-9, 22 minutes - see theatre poster below; the second was filmed at Port Arthur in 1927) of Marcus Clarke's popular fiction For The Term of His Natural Life which appeared as a serial in 1870 and in novel form in 1874. Hence the date "1874" and the place "Taken at Port Arthur" written on the verso of this cdv when the actual date and the actual place of photographic capture were respectively 1873 and the Hobart Gaol in Campbell Street. Beattie fabricated this fake history for several dozen original mugshots taken in the 1870s by government contractor T. J. Nevin because he was required under the terms of his own commission as government contractor (from ca. 1900) to market photographic imagery of Tasmania's penal heritage to the intercolonial tourist. The loose cdv's such as this one of prisoner John Appleby were prepared for sale and exhibition at Sydney's Royal Hotel in 1915 to be displayed as Port Arthur relics, alongside relics and documents associated with the fake convict hulk Success which visited Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. The collection of "convict portraits" held at the National Library of Australia Canberra and at the State Library of NSW in the Mitchell Collection are the estrays from these exhibitions. The NLA photographs inscribed verso with "Taken at Port Arthur 1874" were NOT taken at Port Arthur, despite the title devised by the cataloguist at the NLA from the cdv's verso inscription, nor were they taken by the reviled commandant A. H. Boyd. These ahistoric furphies continue to be promulgated by "interpretationists" at the Port Arthur Historic Site theme park who would wish to inveigle their visitors in the same way that Beattie et al deceived visitors to his museum in the 1900s in the name of tourism.

Verso the cdv of John Appleby held at the NLA
Inscription includes the number "84" and the wording "Taken at port Arthur 1874"
Fake history prepared in the 1900s for exhibitions associated with the fake hulk Success
Photo copyright © KLW NFC 2016 ARR

John Appleby alias Young was transported to Tasmania on board the Candahar in 1842, sentenced to 15 years for burglary. This record details his age, appearance, marital status, conduct etc on arrival. His occupation was painter and glazier. He was given a conditional pardon in September 1850 (CP), but by 1871 he was incarcerated again, sentenced to six years at the Supreme Court Hobart.

John Appleby per Candahar 1842 record: TAHO REF: CON33-1-23_00004_L

Detail of above: John Appleby per Candahar 1842 record: TAHO REF: CON33-1-23_00004_L

John Appleby, free in service (FS), was tried in the Supreme Court Hobart on 4th July 1871 and sentenced to 6 years for receiving stolen plate. His petition lodged twelve months later, on the 11th June 1872 was declined by the Attorney-General, and on the 20th September 1873 he was transferred to the Hobart Gaol, Campbell St. from the Port Arthur prison where Thomas J. Nevin photographed him on being received. Two years later, on the 13th August 1875, the residue of Appleby's sentence was remitted- see detail of record above, column extreme right - viz:.
The Governor's inf has declined to interfere 11/6/72
Hobart Gaol 20/9/73
Gov. inf. 13/8/75
Residue remitted

From February 1872, when the Attorney-General the Hon. W. R. Giblin commissioned Thomas J. Nevin to undertake the systematic photographing of prisoners, those prisoners whose petitions to the Governor were declined were among the first to be photographed. With the assistance of Frederick Stops, clerk and "right-hand man" to the A-G, Thomas Nevin collaborated on collating information on prisoner records, both visual and written through the 1870s into the mid-1880s.

Source: Tasmania Reports of Crime Information for Police 1871-1875, James Barnard Gov't Printer

John Appleby was photographed again in the fortnight prior to discharge on March 4th, 1875, per regulations laid down in the Victoria and NSW Police Acts 1871-1872, adopted in Tasmania after the visit by Victoria's Solicitor-General in January 1872.

MacMahon and Carroll's ... For the term of his natural life
by Academy of Music (Launceston, Tas.) Date 1909]
Archives Office Tasmania. Link:

RELATED POSTS at main weblog