Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Prisoner Mark JEFFREY, a Port Arthur flagellator

Mark Jeffrey (1825-1894) was called a "Port Arthur flagellator" by James Hunt, the man he was arraigned for wilfully murdering in February 1872 at the Supreme Court, Hobart. The verdict returned by the jury at the trial was manslaughter and the sentence was life. Mark Jeffrey may have been photographed at the Hobart Gaol while awaiting his sentence at this trial. Many of these "Supreme Court men" were photographed there by Thomas J. Nevin as early as February 1872.

However, the only known or extant prisoner identification photograph of Mark Jeffrey was taken five years later by Thomas J. Nevin in the first few days of Jeffrey's relocation to the Hobart Gaol from the Port Arthur prison site in 1877. It was taken in the usual circumstances of gaol admission - a booking shot of the prisoner in street clothing - and reproduced from the negative in carte-de-visite format for pasting to the prisoner's criminal record sheet. Duplicates were retained for the central Municipal Police Office registers at the Hobart Town Hall, and others were circulated to regional police stations.

The booking shot (below) of Mark Jeffrey, dated to 1877, has survived as a print from Nevin's glass negative. It was salvaged from the photographer's room and Sheriff's Office at the Hobart Gaol by John Watt Beattie ca. 1900 and reproduced for display in Beattie's convictaria museum in Hobart. Dozens of these negative prints of notorious criminals were reprised by Beattie, plus two hundred or more in standard cdv format, which have survived from the donation of his collection to the QVMAG Launceston in 1930. This copy is held at the State Library of Tasmania.

Title: Mark Jeffrey
Publisher: [18--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toned ; 11 X 8 cm
ADRI: AUTAS001125882597
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

The Ghost Writer in the Autobiography
A year before Mark Jeffrey's death in 1894, a book about his life, ostensibly his autobiography, was published as A burglar's life, or, The stirring adventures of the great English burglar, Mark Jeffrey : a thrilling history of the dark days of convictism in Australia (1893) by the Launceston Examiner and Tasmanian Office. It was reprinted in various formats well into the 20th century, but the most popular edition which appeared in 1900 from Melbourne publishers Alexander McCubbin, has since raised questions of authorship when republished in 1968 by W. and J. E. Hiener for Angus & Robertson, Sydney. The probable author according to these editors was not Mark Jeffrey but James Lester Burke who produced a similar volume on the life of bushranger Martin Cash. Burke's role can be termed variously as 'editor', 'biographer', 'amanuensis', 'co-author' 'scribe' or 'author' or simply 'co-author' (Emby 2011).

Transported convict and petty criminal James Lester Burke (1820-1879) made Mark Jeffrey's acquaintance when Burke was discharged to Port Arthur as a signalman from the Brickfields Depot in Hobart on 3rd December 1876. His crimes included forgery (15 October 1875)and cutting electric telegraph wires. He died in 1879, but Jeffrey died 15 years later, in 1894 (see obituary below), not 1903.

James Lester Burke, arrest for damaging insulators and telegraph wires, 21 July 1869

James Lester Burke, missing, wanted at the Colonial Secretary's Office, 23 February 1870

James Lester Burke, forgery 15 October 1875

Webshot from Trove NLA's 6 editions

Cover of the 1900 edition: read this edition here:

Prisoner Mark Jeffrey's so-called autobiographical account has become somewhat of a benchmark for those who assume that the Port Arthur prison on the Tasman Peninsula was still fully functional up to its closure in 1877. Perhaps it is still widely studied in schools and colleges, and proposed as an accurate witness account of the penal system. But Mark Jeffrey remained as one of a few dozen paupers and invalids unable to work up to that date. The criminal classes, on the other hand, were all transferred back to the Hobart Gaol in Campbell Street at the request of Parliament in July 1873, where they were photographed by Thomas J. Nevin on arrival. The Port Arthur prison was in ruins and semi-deserted, according to Marcus Clark's account of his visit to the site and his meeting with the gouty and largely indisposed Commandant A. H. Boyd in mid 1873 (Argus, July 3, 12 and 26 July 1873).

Pages 108 -109 of A Burglar's Life

Mention is made in the last paragraph on page 109 of the Port Arthur Commandant "Mr. H. Boyd" [sic] in 1872. Notice the missing initial "A" from the full name, Mr Adolarious Humphrey Boyd. Conveniently confused with Thomas H. Boyd the Sydney Photographer of the 1870s-1880s who did not photograph Tasmanian prisoners, late 20th century commentators have used this simple omission of an initial to hype the inglorious A. H. Boyd as THE photographer of "Port Arthur convicts" at Port Arthur (Reeder, Long, Ennis, Crombie, Clark). A. H. Boyd was not a photographer by any definition of the word, nor had he given or was given any mandate to provide the police with mugshots. Just as Mark Jeffrey's date of death was deliberately falsified from 1894 to 1903 to give the impression that he was alive in 1900 to give a first-hand testimony to his Melbourne publishers, the same motivation lies behind those who have wanted A. H. Boyd to be credited as a photographer of prisoners at Port Arthur, citing the "H. Boyd" mentioned on page 109 of this hugely popular book.

A Burglar's Life, 1900 edition, pp 108-109

Pages 118-119 of A Burglar's Life

As soon as Mark Jeffrey arrived from Port Arthur at the Hobart Gaol on 17th April 1877, he was locked up in the model prison in "H" division of the Hobart Gaol, although, as he says, he "had committed no breach of the regulations to warrant such treatment" (p.119). He was subjected to standard procedures for all arrivals: every prisoner awaiting trial was photographed, bathed, shaved, and dressed in prison issue clothing. Jeffrey knew as soon as Nevin photographed him in that week of April 1877 that he could protest at being treated unfairly because he was not under warrant.

A Burglar's Life, 1900 edition, pp 108-109

The standard procedure was this: Thomas J. Nevin photographed prisoners on committal for trial at the Supreme Court adjoining the Hobart Gaol where they were isolated in silence for a month after sentencing. If sentenced for a longer term than three months at the Supreme Court Launceston, they were photographed, bathed, shaved and dressed on being received in Hobart. Prisoners transferred from Port Arthur were subjected to the same routine. These procedures, past and present, were reported at length by a visitor to the Hobart Gaol and Supreme Court in The Mercury, 8th July 1882:

At the Bathurst-street end of the block are about 30 cells, built in three decker style. They are dark, ill ventilated, and stuffy, were originally intended for the use of convicts awaiting shipment to Port Arthur and do not appear to be fitted for other than temporary quarters ... Opening into this yard [Yard 3] are a number of cells, kept as much as possible for Supreme Court first timers, in order to remove them, to some extent at least, from the contaminating influences of the old hands in crime ... The next yard and block of cells are also set apart for the use of first timers , and the cells and yard in the next division are appropriated to the use of prisoners under examination or fully committed for trial. At the back of the block is a model prison, in which the silent system is carried out. The cells here are only used for "Supreme Court men," who are confined in them for one month after sentence, which time they pass in solitary confinement day and night, with the exception of one hour during which they take exercise in the narrow enclosure outside the cells, pacing up and down five yards apart, and in strict silence. There can be no doubt this is, to some at least, a much-dreaded punishment.

Thomas Nevin photographed prisoners William Smith and Mullens at the Hobart Gaol wearing the standard prison issue of a grey uniform and black leathern cap. The journalist visiting the Hobart Gaol in 1882 noted this uniform with the cap in his report to the The Mercury, (as above), on 8th July 1882:

In their dark-grey uniform and black leathern caps, with their criminal visages, shaven of the covering Nature had given to aid them in the concealment of their vicious propensities and villainous characters, they were, in truth, a forbidding, repulsive lot. Yet very far from unintelligent, at least, in some marked instances. A villainous shrewdness and a perverse cleverness writ in many a cunning, gleamy eye and heavy brow ; and a dogged determination to be read in the set of the jaw, and the style of the gait, were as the translated speech of artfully calculated, daring crime.

Recto and Verso of photograph of William Smith per Gilmore 3.
Photo by Thomas Nevin, July 1875
Stamped verso with Nevin's studio stamp and Royal Arms
Mitchell Library NSW PXB 274
Photography © KLW NFC Private Collections 2008-2010 ARR

Full frontal pose
Tasmanian prisoners William Henry Butler and Michael Parker
Photos by T. J. Nevin , 1875-1878

Related posts dealing with mugshots poses, printed formats and prisoner uniforms:

Police Records and Newspaper Reports

The Separate or Model Prison records of the Port Arthur penitentiary are held at the Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW. These records are from the weekly Tasmanian police gazettes. They document Mark Jeffrey's various misdemeanours and petty crimes from 1866 up to the manslaughter sentence of 1872.

Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 1 month for obscene language, and 2 months for assaulting a constable, per this notice of 21 March 1866

Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 4 months for resisting a constable, per this notice of 14 August 1867.

Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 2 months for assault, per this notice of 13 November 1867.

Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 3 months, 7 days and 14 days for insubordination etc, per this notice of 18 March 1868

Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 3 months and 3 days for damaging property, assaulting a constable, disorderly conduct, per this notice of 14 May 1869. He was discharged from the Hobart Gaol, sent to Port Arthur, and discharged from Port Arthur again to Hobart Gaol as a pauper on 19 November 1870

Mark Jeffrey discharged to Hobart Town gaol as a pauper per this police gazette notice of 19 November 1870.

The verdict of manslaughter delivered against Mark Jeffrey at the inquest on the body of his victim, James Hunt, per this police gazette notice of 5 January 1871.

Mark Jeffrey was sentenced to life for manslaughter at the Supreme Court Hobart, per this notice of 13 February 1872

Newspaper Report, The Mercury, 2 January 1872

TRANSCRIPT (unedited from OCR)
THE death of JAMES HUNT, at the General Hospital, on the 26th December, formed the subject of a Coroner's inquiry on the 28th and 30th ult. Twelve witnesses were examined, and their evidence was conclusive in showing that the unfortunate man's death waa caused by violence inflicted by a man named MARK JEFFREY. The two men met at the Butchers' Arms public-house, at the corner of Argyle and Patrick-streets, on the 20th ult., and after drinking together for some time a dispute arose between them, in the course of which HUNT called JEFFREY "a Port Arthur flagellator." The latter becoming in-censed at this, is said to have struck the deceased, HUNT, in the face with his fist, knocking him down, and stamping on him as he was lying on the floor. HUNT shortly afterwards complained of pain in the stomach where JEFFREY had trodden on him, and he made his way to the stable at the rear of the public house, where he remained all night in great pain. On the following morning the poor fellow, with the assistance of a constable, succeeded in reaching the General Hospital, where he lingered till the 20th December, when he died, having in the meantime, however, made a declaration to the effect that, when in the Butchers' Arms, being partly under the influence of liquor, he called JEFFREY a " flogger," when the latter beat him about the head with his fist, knocked him down, and "jumped" on him. A post mortem examination was made on the body, when it was found that death had been occasioned by violence and was not the result of disease. This was the gist of the evidence laid before the Coroner's jury on Thursday and Saturday last, although there were various minor details adduced, calculated to assist them in arriving at a decision as to the manner in which the deceased, HUNT, came to his death. The Coroner also gave them material assistance in his summing up. He reviewed the salient points in the evidence, which he was of opinion conclusively proved that death was occasioned by violence inflicted by MARK JEFFREY. The jury would, he said, require to consider the circumstances under which JEFFREY inflicted these injuries, so as to enable them to arrive at a conclusion as to the crime of which he was guilty. The Coroner expressed his belief that justifiable homicide was completely out of the question, as the mere fact of the deceased's calling him a " Port Arthur flagellator" was not sufficient to justify JEFFREY in knocking him down and kicking or jumping on him ; it would, therefore, either amount to manslaughter or murder. He explained the distinction which the law drew between the two, and quoted a case bearing a strong analogy to that under consideration, in which a schoolmaster, after knocking a boy down, stamped on his stomach, causing injuries which eventually resulted in the boy's death, and the crime in that instance was held to be murder. The Coroner expressed his conviction that, under the whole circumstances, there was no course open to the jury but to bring in a verdict of wilful murder against the man JEFFREY. The jury, however, appeared to think differently, and after some deliberation announced their verdict as being one of manslaughter.

Whether they regarded this as the conclusion to which the evidence undoubtedly led them, or were influenced by feelings of sympathy for the accused, or looked upon it as a matter of little moment what their decision was, considering that the dealing with the person most deeply interested in the matter did not rest with them, it would be difficult to say. It is possible they may have attached smaller importance to the evidence than others did. They may have accepted the statements of two of the witnesses, that JEFFREY " kicked" the man in the stomach, and of another that he "jumped" on him, a statement also made by HUNT himself in his dying declaration ; and yet have failed to see that the fatal results which the treatment occasioned involved JEFFREY in any more serious crime than manslaughter. It may have occurred to them that as the deceased lay prostrate at JEFFREY'S feet the latter must have known that a jump or a kick from a man of his proportions, especially when applied to the stomach of another occupying the position which HUNT was in, would most probably lead to serious results ; and they may still have thought that they were not justified in finding JEFFREY guilty of the murder of the unfortunate deceased. If the jury entertained such opinions after carefully considering tho evidence, they undoubtedly discharged their duties conscientiously in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter. It is the duty of men sitting on juries to banish all feelings of vindictiveness or sympathy, and to deal with the questions before them dispassionately and impartially; and unless they do so they will find themselves wanting in the discharge of their duty to society, or to individuals influenced by their decisions. Persons sitting on Coroner's juries must feel that they have nothing whatever to do with the consequences which another may have to suffer from their decision, and sympathy for an accused individual should accordingly find no place in their consideration; but having the evidence before them, they should return what to the best of their belief would be a true verdict, according to the facts adduced. It is well known that sympathy has in numerous instances been allowed to override justice, but it is difficult to believe that such feelings influenced to a very great extent the jury in this case. They may, however, have underrated the importance of the position in which they were placed. Knowing that it was in the power of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, as the grand jury of the colony, to arraign a man for murder, even though their decision might be in favour of the lesser crime, manslaughter, they may have regarded their verdict as being nothing more nor less than a matter of form ; but if such were the case they sadly misapprehended their functions. Sworn to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence before them, it was their duty to have considered it as thoughtfully and carefully as though the final disposition of the matter rested with them, and their verdict should have been entirely based on the evidence on which alone they were asked to give a decision, apart altogether from any action which might be taken by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, or the jury at the Supreme Court sittings.

Very probably the jury who sat on this inquiry on Saturday considered they had fulfilled their duty in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against MARK JEFFREY, but there are persons who question the justice of the decision The Coroner, immediately on being made acquainted with the determination at which the jury had arrived, informed them that he was bound to accept their verdict, but said he did not scruple to toll them he differed from it, and expressed his belief that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL would put the man on his trial for murder in spite of their finding. This decidedly plain and unmistakable expression of opinion on the part of the Coroner, on the results of the half hour which the jury occupied in considering their verdict, appeared to have taken them about as much by surprise as their decision took the Coroner. However, JEFFREY was committed to take his trial at the next criminal sitting of the Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen on which crime he will be arraigned by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Source: THE MERCURY. (1872, January 2). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2. https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8925409

Obituary 1894
The square parentheses enclosing the second paragraph do not belong to the printed original article.


DEATH OF MARK JEFFREY. HOBART, WEDNESDAY. Mark Jeffrey, who was well known as one of the most fractious of the Imperial prisoners, died in the Invalid Depot yester- day. He had reached the advanced age of 68 years. [Mark Jeffrey was born at Wood Ditton, near Newmarket, Cambridgeshire, on August 31, 1825. When a young man he was transported for fifteen years for burglary and attempted murder, and spent many years at Norfolk Island and Port Arthur. Recently he published a history of his experiences, which were of a remarkable character, Mark having brought upon himself every kind of punishment inflicted upon refractory prisoners. His great enemy was his temper, which was of the most violent character, and when aroused he was ex-ceedingly dangerous. He was essentially an egotist-physically and mentally strong -but without balance, his animal nature dominating all that was good in him. He desired death, for his life had been a failure, and his sufferings during the past two years were very acute. Before he left England he was injured in the chest by a kick during a fight. Some time ago a swelling appeared in his chest, and the growth increased day by day until his death. He regarded the swelling as his "death warrant," and his favourite ex pression was, "I have given my life ; read it and see how I have suffered."]

Source: DEATH OF MARK JEFFREY. (1894, July 19). Launceston Examiner (Tas. : 1842 - 1899), p. 6. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article39586455

Source: Wikipedia (?)

This photograph, ostensibly of Mark Jeffrey aged 68 yrs old, was taken at Percy Whitelaw's studio in Launceston Tasmania in 1893 just months before his death in 1894.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Blame it on Beattie: the Parliamentarians photographs

There was no photographer by the name of Adolarious Humphrey Boyd, amateur, official or otherwise, in 19th century Tasmania, yet in 2007 the National Library of Australia revised their correct attribution to commercial and police photographer Thomas J. Nevin as the photographer of their collection of 84 carte-de-visite portraits of Tasmanian prisoners, catalogued as Convict portraits, Port Arthur, 1874,  at the insistence of the descendants and apologists of A. H. Boyd for purely commercial advantage to the Port Arthur Historic Site, and for their subsequent publication of the "convict" photographs in a coffee-table edition, Exiled (2010).

A. H. Boyd was a Tasmanian born accountant who worked at the Port Arthur prison site from 1857; who assumed the position of Commandant at Port Arthur from another official, James Boyd, in 1871; who was removed from the position in December 1873 at the request of Parliament; and who was reviled by the public and press for his bullying of employees, corruption and incompetence. When the doors finally closed on the Port Arthur prison in 1877, A. H. Boyd begged the government to compensate him for dispensing with his services (Mercury, 9 May 1877). This same A. H. Boyd,  who has no provable attribution to any extant photograph anywhere, has entered the history of Australian photography due solely to the whims and fantasies of his descendants, and to the anxieties of photo-history commentators most keen to cover up the error of attribution which began in 1984.

The Thomas H. Boyd Photograph, ca.1884, of G. W. Keach

Allport Album X, in which the photo of George Keach by Thomas H. Boyd ca. 1884 was originally collected.
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Amateur photo-historian Chris Long was among the first to be targeted by A. H. Boyd's descendants in 1984 with only their hearsay offered as proof, and together with co-editor Gillian Winter, assumed that there would be extant photographs by A. H. Boyd, if indeed he had photographed prisoners. Strangely enough, they found none. Gillian Winter found mention of THREE photographs of parliamentarian George William Keach, his wife and daughter, with a Boyd attribution (no first name or initial) in the Archives Office Tasmania. But those photographs were missing from the original Allport Album when she (per Special Collections librarian Geoff Stilwell) listed its contents. Those photographs were taken by Sydney photographer Thomas H. Boyd (1851-1886) loosely collated originally with other carte-de-visite items taken of Allport family members and their friends by photographers in Hobart, Melbourne, Brisbane, Rome and elsewhere, per this TAHO catalogue listing:

TAHO Catalogue
Title: [Allport album X]
Publisher: [18--]
Description: 1 v. [20] leaves : sepia ; 218 x 172 mm, majority of photos measure 84 x 52 mm. each
Binding: Heavy embossed brown leather covers, with brass lock. Spanning section of lock is missing. Gilt edges to thick card pages. Flyleaf decorated with foliated initials E G A
Notes:Album contains 38 portraits, including Cartes-de-Visite and cabinet portraits. Shelved with an envelope of modern copies of photographs and a handwritten list of the subjects and photographers inscribed by G.T.S
Condition Feb. 2005: Binding worn, corners slightly damaged, generally good
Contents: Incomplete contents: William Ritchie / Spurling -- Mary Marguerite Allport / Baily -- Elizabeth Allport / baily -- Morton Allport / Woolley -- Blanche Laura Keach / Baily -- Annie (Campbell) Allport / Wherrett Bros -- Annie (Campbell) Allport / Foster & Martin -- Eva Mary Allport -- Elizabeth Horton / Burrows -- Capt. Samuel Horton / Burrows -- Curzona Francis Louise Allport / Baily -- George William Keach / Boyd -- Janet Mary (Keach) Horne, Mrs. G. W. Keach / Boyd -- Ladies College Tableaux -- Thomas Riggall / Johnstone O'Shannessy -- Blanche Laura Keach / Boyd -- James Backhouse Walker / Foster & Martin -- Mary Marguerite Steele / Winter -- Thomas Edward Joseph Steele / J. Bishop Osbourne

Six years earlier, in 1977, exact duplicates of the carte-de-visite photographs of those same Tasmanian prisoners held at the NLA were exhibited at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery from their own collection, with correct attribution to Thomas J. Nevin as the photographer. But by 1992, when Chris Long and Gillian Winter were preparing a publication for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, titled Tasmanian Photographers 1840-1940, the furphy about A. H. Boyd was included and published, yet no examples of his supposed talents were to be found.

T. Nevin exhibition of convict photographs
The Mercury, March 3rd, 1977

If these editors are to be forgiven, the parasitic attribution to A. H. Boyd might be explained by their confusing Sydney photographer Thomas H. Boyd's second name Boyd with A. H. Boyd's; and Thomas J. Nevin's first name Thomas, the name they were asked to suppress, mistaking as well the initial H. in Thomas H. Boyd's name with the initial H. in A. H. Boyd's name, arriving at a totally fictitious photographer by the name of A. H. Boyd. But that is too kind. There is little doubt that a concerted campaign has been waged by aggressive individuals in Tasmania to credit their ancestor A.H. Boyd as some sort of gifted point-and-shoot photographer "artist" at Port Arthur to ameliorate the facts of his very ugly reputation.

George W. Keach and John Watt Beattie
Who removed the photograph of George W. Keach from the Allport Album? It was probably John Watt Beattie who solicited rather than took portraits of parliamentarians in 1899 and reproduced them for  inclusion in "a Photographic picture containing the whole of the Members of Parliament of both Houses, past and present."

G. W. Keach, from a photo by Thomas H. Boyd ca. 1884
Reproduced by John Watt Beattie 1899
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

TAHO Catalogue
Keach, George William - 1824-1893 - Portraits
Title: George William Keach
In: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania No. 144
Publisher: Hobart : J. W. Beattie, [19--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toning ; 14 x 10 cm
Format: Photograph
ADRI: AUTAS001136191699

This photograph of parliamentarian and farmer George W. Keach (and the other two of his wife and daughter) was taken by Sydney photographer Thomas H. Boyd, probably in 1884 at the Melbourne Exhibition Building during the Victorian Jubilee and Intercolonial Exhibitions. George Keach departed Launceston for Melbourne on board the Flinders on 26 August 1884 to represent Tasmanian interests in produce entries at the Victorian International Exhibition 1884 of Wine, Fruit, Grain & other products of the soil of Australasia with machinery, plant and tools employed. Photographer Thomas H. Boyd had exhibited at the Melbourne International Exhibition 1880 and at the 1883 Amsterdam International, Colonial and Export Trade Exhibition. Thomas Boyd also advertised his portrait of prisoners Archibald and Haynes taken at Darlinghurst Gaol (held at the NLA without attribution):

Title J.F. Archibald and John Haynes in Darlinghurst Gaol, New South Wales [picture].
Date [1882]
Extent 1 photograph : sepia toned ; 9.5 x 10.7 cm. on mount 15.1 x 17.7 cm.
Summary In 1882 Archibald and Haynes, editors of the Bulletin magazine, were imprisoned for not paying the costs in the Clontarf libel case. The resulting verdict awarded to the plaintiff was a farthing plus L.700 costs. They were released after six weeks when J.H. Dibbs who had taken up a collection paid their debts.
Notes Condition : good.
Inscriptions: "Archibald & Haynes in Darlinghurst Gaol." --in pencil on reverse.
Title from inscription."Ferguson collection" --compactus card.
NLA negative no. 254.

Advertisement: 'Photos in Prison/ Boyd’s life-like Portraits of Haynes and Archibald, The Imprisoned Journalists…George Street Sydney’ ( Bulletin 15 April 1882, 15).
The State Library of Victoria holds seven portraits taken by Thomas H. Boyd about the same time, which were accessioned from the John Etkins Collection, the source as well of several portraits by Thomas J. Nevin. The subjects of these portraits are unidentified: the photographer's studio stamp appears only the verso on some, and on the recto as well on others. The G. W. Keach portrait most closely resembles the printing of first portrait (below) of an older woman, which has no studio stamp on recto, viz:

State Library Victoria Catalogue
Title: [Portrait photographs by Thomas H. Boyd, George Street, Sydney] [picture] / Thomas H. Boyd.
Author/Creator: Thomas H. Boyd photographer.
Date(s): ca. 1879 - ca. 1886
Description: 7 photographic prints on cartes de visite mounts : albumen silver ; 11 x 7 cm.
Identifier(s): Accession no(s) H2005.34/653; H2005.34/654; H2005.34/654A; H2005.34/655; H2005.34/656; H2005.34/657; H2005.34/658; H2005.34/659
Source/Donor: Gift of Mr John Etkins; 2005.
Link to this record:

Genuine errors of attribution by museum and library workers can and do arise, and this case of confusing photographer Thomas H. Boyd and prison employee A. H. Boyd may have begun as a genuine mistake, but since 1984, at least, the "genuine" has been replaced by the deliberately "fraudulent" by these individuals on behalf of their public institutions: in particular, Chris Long, Gillian Winter, Alan Davies, Warwick Reeder, Sylvia Carr, Michael Proud, Linda Groom, Margy Burn, Julia Clark, Hamish Maxwell-Stewart, Kim Simpson .... All of these individuals have either initiated, contributed to, or crudely perpetuated the parasitic attribution of a collection of 1870s police mugshots taken by the very real photographer, Thomas J. Nevin, to a corrupt official who was not a photographer by any definition of the word - to Mr. A. H. Boyd. No doubt the State Library of NSW contributed greatly to the problem with an old card catalogue entry listing A. H. Boyd's name and Nevin's as a mere copyist for the T. J. Nevin mugshots held there at PX6274. The initial "H" on the old card entry, written over a "J" (?) in Boyd's name, appeared there on the catalogue ca. 1984 when Chris Long wrote letters to SLNSW curator Alan Davies who was preparing the book The Mechanical Eye in Australia (1986), suggesting an inclusion of Boyd's name (which was published only as a footnote, as it happened, p.201, Footnote 3 "Letter from Chris Long, formerly at Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston"). The catalogue entry online has since been amended, and A. H. Boyd's name removed. A second attempt to get A. H. Boyd a photographic attribution at the SLNSW appeared as a pencilled inscription with his name below a stereoscopic landscape of the Port Arthur prison published in 1889 by the Anson Bros; that inscription is also fake and dates to 1984. There are no extant photographs taken by someone called A. H. Boyd at the SLNSW or anywhere else.

Misattribution on old card catalogue at SLNSW (1984?)
Photos copyright © KLW NFC 2013 ARR

Photo copyright © KLW NFC 2009 ARR

The Members of Parliament Album
John Watt Beattie, on appointment as government photographer, wrote a letter to Parliamentary members in the hope of collecting photographs of all Tasmanian politicians who had held office since 1856. Many who were deceased by 1899 when Beattie began the project  - including George Keach who died in 1893 - had been photographed by earlier photographers, Thomas J. Nevin included (Kilburn, Giblin), and notably Henry Hall Baily among many others, but their attribution was not credited by Beattie on the final picture.

J. W. Beattie
Dear Sir,
Having received an order from the Hon. the Speaker, Mr. Stafford Bird, M.H.A., to prepare a Photographic picture for him, containing the whole of the Members of Parliament of both Houses, past and present, we would ask you to kindly favour us with a sitting at the above, Studio, or to furnish us with your Photograph.
As the Hon. the Speaker intends to present the picture to one of our public institutions, it is desirable to make it as complete as possible, in order to render it of both national and historic interest, and we will spare no trouble nor expense to obtain the Photographs of those Members who may now be deceased or have left this colony.
If you furnish us with the name of anyone who is likely to have, or know of a Photograph of some ...[page(s) missing]
Trusting to hear from you soon, and thanking you in anticipation for your kind assistance,
We are,
Dear Sir, Very faithfully yours,
J. W. Beattie
A.S. Gordon
P.S. - No charge whatever will be made for the sitting, and any expense you may be put to in the obtaining of a Photograph will be most thankfully refunded.
One or more pages are missing from this letter by J. W. Beattie and A. S. Gordon. This note accompanies the letter held at the Archives Office Tasmania, written by Gillian Winter, whose involvement with this album may yet reveal the whereabouts of the George Keach photograph.

p/c of original in TMAG - letter [word ? struck out] from Beattie asking for sittings when preparing Members of Parliament book.
[p/c supplied to Marian Jameson by Gillian Winter
Nov. 2002]

Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania, by J. W. Beattie
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office
Title: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania / photographed by J. W. Beattie, 52 Elizabeth Street, Hobart
Creator: Beattie, J. W. (John Watt), 1859-1930
Publisher: Hobart : J.W. Beattie [19--]
Description: 1v., 259 photographs: sepia toned ports. 38 x 57 cm
Format: Album
Notes: Collection of 259 numbered and mounted portraits of Tasmanian politicians and parliamentary officials. Each portrait measures 40 x 98 mm and are set in two rows per page, 4 portraits to a row
Alphabetic index to portrait titles on verso of front cover
Portrait titles are inscribed beneath images in unknown hand
Green cloth binding with gold lettering and key patterning. Backed spine and corners in green velum?
Condition August 2001: Some surface wear, top backed corners slightly torn and small tear in cloth in centre of back cover


TAHO Ref: PH30/1/3638
Description: Photograph - Parliamentarians of Tasmania, from 1856 to 1895

The typed list of all photographs in The Big Picture
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Douglas Thomas Kilburn (1813-1871)
From a photo by Thomas J. Nevin  ca. 1868
Reproduced by John Watt Beattie 1899
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Title: Douglas Thomas Kilburn (1813-1871)
In: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania No. 95
Publisher: Hobart : J. W. Beattie, [19--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toning ; 14 x 10 cm
Format: Photograph
ADRI: AUTAS001136191202
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

One of two different cdv photographs of the Nevin family solicitor W. R. Giblin, later A-G and Premier.

Taken by Thomas J. Nevin ca. 1868
Reproduced by John Watt Beattie 1899
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Title: William Robert Giblin
Giblin, William Robert - 1840-1887 - Portraits
In: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania No. 138
Publisher: Hobart : J. W. Beattie, [19--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toning ; 14 x 10 cm
Format: Photograph
ADRI: AUTAS001136191632
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

Smith, Francis Villeneuve (1819-1909)
Reproduced by John Watt Beattie 1899
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Title: Sir Francis Smith
In: In: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania No. 66
Publisher: Hobart : J. W. Beattie, [19--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toning ; 14 x 10 cm
Format: Photograph
ADRI: AUTAS001136190915
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

More photographs by Thomas H. Boyd are held at the State Library of NSW, eg.

State Library of NSW
Title Mary Rotton, ca. 1875 / photographer Boyd, San Francisco Palace of Art, Sydney
Caption Mary Rotton, ca. 1875 / photographer Boyd, San Francisco Palace of Art, Sydney
Creator Boyd, Thomas H.
Call Number P1 / 1513
Digital Order No. a4362013

RELATED POSTS main weblog

Monday, August 11, 2014

Captain Goldsmith dines with the Franklins at Govt House

Quinces. Royal Botanical Gardens, Hobart Tasmania
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Captain Edward Goldsmith (Elizabeth Nevin's uncle) was invited at least three times to dine with the Lieutenant-Governor of the colony, Captain Sir John Franklin  and his wife Jane, Lady Franklin at Government House, Davey St, between 1839 and 1842.

These pages listing guests and booking dates are from Franklin, Jane Dinner Engagement book, Tasmania, 1837-1843 (University of Tasmania https://eprints.utas.edu.au/7806/ ):


Page 70: Dinner invitation sent to Captain Edward Goldsmith (Wave), 23rd October 1839 to dine at Government House. He had arrived as master of the Wave in late September 1839, and was ready to depart by mid October.

Sept. 26.-Arrived the barque Wave 345 tons, Goldsmith, master, from London, with a general cargo.-Passengers, Messrs. Barnard, Roap, Herring, Walker, W.M.Cook, Davis, Bennett, Leftwick, Roworzing, and Mrs. Bennett.
Source: HOBART TOWN SHIP NEWS. (1839, September 28). The Cornwall Chronicle (Launceston, Tas. : 1835 - 1880), p. 2. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article65952554

Source: Archives Office Tasmania
Arrived in Hobart Goldsmith Ship's Master on the Wave 25 Sep 1839 
Ref: MB2/39/1/4 P351

For London direct.
THE fast sailing bark Wave, 400 tons, E. Goldsmith, commander, having all her dead weight engaged, will meet with quick dispatch. For freight of wool or passage (having superior accommodations) apply to the Captain on board, or to Bilton & Meaburn
Old Wharf, October 10.
Source: Advertising. (1839, October 11). The Hobart Town Courier and Van Diemen’s Land Gazette (Tas. : 1839 - 1840), p. 3. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8748540

Captain Goldsmith's wife, Mrs Elizabeth Goldsmith (nee Day), does not appear by name or title on these invitations for her husband to attend Jane Franklin's dinners, although other invitees' wives were included. Pregnant with their third child, she had remained in London, but before her husband's departure in command of the Wave for Hobart on 2nd June 1839, she had supervised a cargo of fashionable items to be sent on consignment to Hobart merchants. John Johnson, of 59 Liverpool-street, for example, who appeared delighted with his acquisition of the newest fashions chosen by "Mrs Captain Goldsmith", ran this advertisement for bonnets in The Colonial Times, 15 October 1839:

The deference to women of status in 1830s Tasmania precluded publication of their Christian names, it seems. Captain Goldsmith's wife, Elizabeth Goldsmith , was to be called "Mrs Captain Goldsmith", if John Johnson's advertisement for his sale of her cargo of bonnets was to be a guide:

The undersigned has now ready for Sale, an assortment of Dunstable, Tuscan, and fancy Silk Bonnets
THE GIRL'S and LADIES' Silk Bonnets were selected under the immediate superintendence of Mrs. Captain Goldsmith, shortly before the Wave left England. A Guarantee of the latest and newest fashion! John Johnson, 59, Liverpool-street, Oct. 11, 1839.
Source: The Colonial Times, 15 October 1839.

The ladies of Hobart Town were wearing these styles ca. 1838

Creator: Bock, Thomas, 1793-1855
ADRI: AUTAS001124066499
ADRI: AUTAS001124066606
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

Note: DUNSTABLE BONNET, THE. English, Jig. G Major. Standard tuning (fiddle). AABB. The melody is unique to London publishers Charles and Samuel Thompson's 1765 country dance collection. The first straw bonnet was said to have been made in Dunstable, a market town in Bedfordshire, England, which in any case became associated in the 18th century with finely made straw bonnets. Source:https://tunearch.org/wiki/Dunstable_Bonnet_(The)Source for notated version: Printed sources: Thompson (Compleat Collection of 200 Favourite Country Dances, vol. 2), 1765; No. 157.


Page 103: Dinner invitation sent to Captain Edward Goldsmith, 4th December 1840 which was not filled. He arrived at Hobart a week later, 10 December 1840, in command of the Wave, and departed for London on 16th March, 1841:

Sailed the barque Wave,343 tons, Edward Goldsmith, master,  for London, with oil, wool etc, 16 March 1841
Source: Colonial Times (Hobart, Tas. : 1828 - 1857) Tue 16 Mar 1841 Page 2 SHIP NEWS.

Captain Goldsmith arrived back in Hobart from London as master of the Janet Izat on 26 October 1842 (Ref: TAHO MB2/39/1/6 P355). He was invited to join a small company of seven to dine with the Franklins, including Dr. Joseph Milligan, superintendent of the Aboriginal group at Oyster Cove, and the auditor George Boyes, appointed acting Colonial Secretary (2 February 1842–20 April 1843) on John Franklin's recommendation after dismissing the previous Colonial Secretary, John Montagu, who had alleged interference in government by Jane Franklin. The discussions at dinner might well have centred on John Franklin's difficulties with Montagu and other senior officials (Solicitor-General Jones and Matthew Forster, chief police magistrate) but of immediate concern to Captain Goldsmith was Sir John Franklin's arrangements for the safe return passage of gravely ill Antarctic circumnavigator Captain John Biscoe with his family on board the Janet Izat. Captain Biscoe died at sea on the Janet Izat on the return voyage for London departing 15th February 1843. On the topic of polar exploration Sir John Franklin may have foreshadowed in this company at dinner his desire to reprise a commission from the Admiralty to lead a naval expedition to the Arctic, an ambition which cost him his life in June 1847. The Franklins departed Hobart, VDL for Port Phillip, Victoria on board the Flying Fish, in November 1843.

Page 148: Top billing. Dinner invitation sent to Captain Edward Goldsmith, 1st November 1842.

Source of originals.
Franklin, Jane Dinner Engagement book, Tasmania, 1837-1843. University of Tasmania Library Special and Rare Materials Collection, Australia. (Unpublished) https://eprints.utas.edu.au/7806/; https://eprints.utas.edu.au/7806/1/rs_18_3.pdf

Plate from the dinner service used at Government House, bearing Governor Sir John Franklin's insignia.
Source: Gowans Auctions, Moonah, Tasmania: June 2016, Ref: PR39-1462326394

The Hobart Regatta
The more immediate concern for John Franklin was the appointment of Captain Goldsmith as umpire of the four oars gigs race at the upcoming Hobart Regatta to be held at Sandy Bay on 1st December, 1842. The event was marked by a protest from Mr. Hefford:

The second was that of gigs pulling four oars ; the first boat to receive fifteen sovereigns, and the second seven sovereigns. Five boats started: the " Cater- pillar," "Centipede,""Chase-all," "Gaxelle," and the "Son of the Thames." At first each seemed to maintain its place, continuing to do so as far as the outward ' buoy, when the " Gaxelle" began to creep away, and continued gradually to gain apace until she arrived at the goal, closely followed by the "Centipede." The pull was, altogether, a heavy one, and, we should say, bespoke rather the energy of muscle than a decision as to the speed of the rival crafts. The winners were- of the first prise, Mr. Bayley, owner of the" Gaxelle," and of the second, Mr. C. Lovett, by the " Centipede ;" these received their prizes, accompanied by the usual honours, at the hands of M. T. Chapman, though not without a protest on the part of Mr. J. Hefford against the bestowal of the second prize, on the ground that the " Centipede" had not properly rounded one of the buoys. The objection was done away with, as well by Mr. Kelly as by Captain Goldsmith, who had been appointed umpire, under the Impression that Mr. Hefford had publicly withdrawn his boat.
Source: LOCAL. (1842, December 2). The Courier (Hobart, Tas. : 1840 - 1859), p. 2. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2953480

Captain Goldsmith, committee member at the Regatta 1847
Silk program, from TAHO at Flickr

Where have all the cabbages gone?
What did Jane Franklin serve her guests at these more intimate dinners? Theft of fruits and vegetables from the gardens which supplied Government House was proving evermore difficult to curtail. Discontent among the populace at "food rotting on the ground" was reported in the press. Even colonists caught sampling plants were threatened with police investigation.

The Colonial Times, Sept 18, 1834
Royal Botanical Gardens, Hobart Tasmania
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Royal Botanical Gardens, Hobart Tasmania
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

A display board in the Gardener's Cottage, Royal Botanical Gardens informs visitors that:-

The Govt garden is an area of 15 acres & has about as many gardeners or labouring men (for they are all London pickpockets) under a chief who has a good salary ...Lady Jane Franklin, wife of the Governor Sir John Franklin, letter to her sister - 1842 
Cabbages claim second scalp
The first superintendent of the Gardens was dismissed by Governor Arthur for supplying cabbages to the wrong people. But cabbages continued to cause controversy into Sir John Franklin's tenure.
Lady Jane Franklin had started to notice a gradual decline in the amount of produce that arrived at her table. She noted that there were many people better supplied than they were. The housekeeper later warned her of growing discontent in the servants quarters because they had nearly no vegetables at all. Lady Franklin was convinced that either theft or bribery was to blame, so she came down to the Gardens to complain to the gardener.
At first he tried to blame drought, but soon admitted that certain men of rank and privilege were increasingly sending ...
Sir John Franklin's nephew, William Porden Kay, was appointed to redesign the Gardens in 1842. The intention was to include areas for public enjoyment beyond the purely economic and scientific purposes the gardens already served.

William Porden Kay1842
Royal Botanical Gardens, Hobart Tasmania
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Imported Fruits

Apples and Pears
Royal Botanical Gardens, Hobart Tasmania
Photos © KLW NFC 2014 ARR

Government House Hobart 1847
Lantern slide reproduced by J. W. Beattie Tasmanian Series from an unattributed early photograph
University of Tasmania eprints Special Collections

Jane, Lady Franklin ca. 1838, by Thomas Bock
Sir John Franklin ca. 1845 by E. P. Hardy
National Portrait Gallery of Australia collection

RELATED POSTS main weblog

On board the "City of Hobart" 31st January 1872