The Noble Convict Myth

INTRODUCTION

Wood's enunciation of the popular stereotype of convict identity is based on 20th century notions of justice and fairness, and ignores the fact that criminality exists in all civilizations.

In order to attack this unsound myth, Wood's critics play down the social context in which the 18th and 19th century poor were bound, emphasizing instead an assertion that most convicts led a life of crime by choice. Their analyses are not wholly convincing, but suffice to undermine the myth.

The work by Nicholas, et al, approaches from another perspective, and is fairly convincing in establishing that the convicts are broadly representative of the British and Irish working classes. We are left to draw our own conclusions, but inexorably led full circle back to the idea that the workers must have been victims of circumstance. Their analysis is unfortunately too narrow.

THE MYTH ?

While many Australians preferred to forget or hide the past (Note 1) others nurtured the picture of the hard done by worker cum convict. Some thought of them as pioneers (Note 2). This popular Australian stereotype (Note 3) was articulated by Wood:

Wood was writing at a time when Australians had been tested in the fields of battle and were forging a national identity to be proud of. Turning the convict taint into a symbol of honour seems to have been part of this process (Note 6). The foundation behind Wood's argument was that the convicts were forced to steal because of starvation wages and unemployment (Note 7). Wood focussed on a few shining examples of injustice; the Scottish martyrs, the Tolpuddle martyrs, poachers with starving families, and chartists. Unfortunately, he fails to address city crime, and the very real likelihood that there might be "real" criminals amongst those transported. Wood's critics take full advantage of this omission.

EXCLUSIVELY MALE MYTH ?

Only about 16% of the convicts were female (Note 8). Of these, very few received any sort of fame e.g. Mary Reibey (Note 9) and Mary Bryant (for a valiant escape attempt)(Note 10). However this does not adequately explain their absence from the myth. One must look to the place women held in 17th and 18th century English and colonial society, and the perceptions of society to convict women in particular.

Even allowing for the radicalism of some feminist literature, there is no doubt that women were generally subordinate to and treated as there to serve men in a patriarchal society (Note 11). A few unchallengeable facts should suffice: women's wages were generally much lower than men's; a woman's property became that of her husband on marriage (Note 12); a man was entitled (and regarded as duty bound) to chastise his wife (Note 13). Without effective birth control women/mothers were economical1y dependent on their partners, and without adequate social security had little choice but to remain so. Their labour in the home was regarded as unproductive in an economic sense (Note 14).

It seems unlikely that few male contemporaries saw past the prostitute role forced on the women (Note 15), and discounted or ignored the positive contributions made by them (Note 16). This perception seems to have been perpetuated by the male dominated society, and by its historians, who were typically older men (Note 17).

MYTH ATTACKED

The noble convict has been portrayed as nothing more than a thief (Note 18). There can be no doubt that the majority of those transported were convicted of theft (Note 19). It is also clear that the numbers convicted of political, trade-unionist and agrarian offences were relatively insignificant (Note 20). However Wood recognizes that the convicts broke the law, but excuses them because they were given no real choice by the propertied classes (Note 21). Wood's critics assert that the great majority of convicts, a1lowing for differences between English, Scottish and Irish convicts (Note 22), were working class people who came from a criminal class, and that they were there by preference. Therefore they have no excuse.

Chesney has vividly demonstrated the existence of a criminal class in England's industrial cities (Note 23). It is also clear that almost all of the convicts came from the working classes (Note 24). However, the conclusion that those dependent on crime for a living had an aversion to labour and "belonged by taste and circumstance to the criminal classes" (Note 25) has not been conclusively established. The anecdotal evidence and opinion from well to do observers relied upon (Note 26) is not compelling. The observers quoted assumed that by belonging to the working class one automatically belonged to the criminal class (Note 27). Other contemporaries recognised that there were convicts who had not led a life of crime, and were concerned at their further corruption by habitual criminals (Note 28).

We must be careful of the weight given to comments made by contemporaries of the convicts, whether good or bad. For example, Governor Macquarie praised the convicts and emancipated settlers, as a justification for his administration of the colony (Note 29). On the other hand, Reverend Ullathorne was very critical of convict behaviour (Note 30), but took every opportunity to assert the success (and hence the need) of the Catholic missionary work among the convicts (Note 31).

Chesney compares the squalid conditions and low paid long hours of the workers to that of the habitual criminals but does not automatically lump them all in together, even though "respectable people" may have done so (Note 32). It is clear that many working class people drifted in and out of crime on the tide of opportunity or need.

Clark states in support that 25 to 33% were second offenders (Note 34). Robson's sample showed 50-75% had previous convictions (Note 35). One can just as easily emphasize that perhaps half were first offenders, tending to support the view that a significant proportion were indeed casual offenders. One could also point out that once convicted a person was forever unemployable (Note 36), so that it was possible for an habitual criminal to thieve from necessity rather than preference (Note 37).

The material presented by Chesney suggests there were many facets to the poor, and that the generalizations made by Wood and those who criticized him do not present an accurate picture of the convicts.

For example, we are told by Clark that the Tolpuddle martyrs were only six (Note 38). Yet 100,000 of their fellow trade unionists demonstrated against their treatment (Note 39). Wages were declining to the point where it was difficult to earn a wage sufficient to support a family (Note 40). How many of those were forced or chose to enter a life of crime ?

The small number of agricultural rioters transported is also emphasized (Note 41). This overlooks the fact that the riots were widespread and involved many thousands of people venting discontent at low wages and unemployment (Note 42). Clark also points out that a large majority of the convicts came from the towns (Note 43). However the abysmal working conditions in rural England forced a massive shift to the towns in search of work, and this is reflected in the high proportion of convicts born in rural areas (Note 44). One could argue that the only ones left behind were those with jobs, and therefore had less need to resort to crime, although it is likely that there were less opportunities in the country than the crowded towns and cities to commit crimes without being caught.

These protesters can hardly be considered the same as the criminal class (although some habitual criminals probably went along for the fun and the pickings). Yet given the conditions existing at the time it is 1ikely that many of the unemployed may have been forced to beg or thieve, whether occasionally or habitually. "And theft comes easier to a man of spirit" (Note 45).

The focus on the different convict profile over time, with an increased proportion of more serious offenders being sent as administration improved (Note 46) is more compelling. Shaw also relies on previous conviction statistics (Note 47) to draw the same conc1usions, yet recognises the variety of prisoners sent out (Note 48).

Even those born and brought up in the slums or ghettos might be regarded as having little choice but to enter a life of crime (Note 49). We must also recognise that crime cannot be explained solely on the basis of poverty and a savage criminal code (Note 50). It is probably fair to observe that there will always be a core element of criminality in any society, even in the absence of abject poverty. Examples abound of crimes committed by those with a comfortable standard of living, both today and yesterday (Note 51).

Nevertheless there seems to be some correlation between unemployment and the crime rate (Note 52), whether caused by bitterness or idleness. Furthermore, for our period, the consequences of unemployment were more immediate: bitterness and idleness were joined by deprivation of the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter . There were no unemployment benefits (Note 53) and there was a need to stave of entry into the family-splitting workhouse (Note 54).

For example, significant unemployment followed the end of the Napoleonic wars with wages continuing to fall (Note 55). This coincided with an increase in crime and transportation numbers (Note 56). Unemployment did not start to decline- until the 1840s, and it was not until the 1870s that "affluence - or what men used to starvation regarded as comfort - had extinguished the fires in hungry bellies" (Note 57). Even at the end of the century, 40% of the working class still lived in what was then called poverty (Note 58).

CASUAL OR HABITUAL CRIMINALS

If we accept that unemployment drove some to crime, we need to consider to what extent those transported are representative of the casual and habitual criminals. It is logical to assume that those more practiced (and tutored) at theft (and having the goods fenced) are, for a single occurrence (Note 59), less likely to be caught than casual criminals (Note 60). This may have resulted in a representational bias, although seemingly impossible to prove (Note 61).

MYTH DESTROYED ?

Wood's critics have succeeded in demonstrating that few of the convicts fit into the martyr category. They have been less convincing in establishing that most convicts were professional or even habitual criminals. Some 160,000 convicts do not fit easily into the same mould.

A believable profile would include professionals, habitual amateurs and occasional amateurs. Some would steal by choice and others by need, and probably some by both. Prior convictions give some idea of how many led a life of crime, but are inconclusive as to the extent of choice involved.

A REINTERPRETATION

The evidence presented in Convict Workers clearly demonstrates that the convicts are broadly representative of the English and Irish working classes left behind (Note 62), although better educated (Note 63). The conclusion drawn from this is that the convicts were ordinary workers who stole occasionally, not professional criminals (Note 64).

The reliability of the indents has been criticized on the basis that occupational details were provided by the convicts themselves (Note 65). The Colonial authorities initially had to rely on information provided by the convicts themselves, especially where indents came out on a, sometimes much later, ship (Note 66). However, indent papers were prepared by the British authorities in some detail by Macquarie's time (Note 67). Nicholas shows that significant proportions of workers were employed in their claimed trades in the colonies, especially the skilled workers (Note 68).

Because convicts possess some worker skills it does not necessarily follow that some were not also professional criminals. It seems clear that some used their employment situation as an opportunity to commit crime. Others used their employment skills in committing the crime itself e.g. sweeps in breaking and entering, bank employees in white collar crime (Note 69). There would also have been convicts who were skilled but temporarily or permanently unemployed, and perhaps living by crime.

A majority of convicts transported to NSW were first offenders: 70% of the Irish and 59% of the British (Note 70). Nicholas's sample is larger than Robson's (12% compared to 5%)(Note 71), but does not include convicts transported to Van Diemen's Land, to which a larger number of second offenders were transported (Note 72).

SOME CONCLUSIONS

The Convict Workers may very well create a new myth very similar to the romantic one enunciated by Wood over seventy years ago. However the evidence seems to point to a convict profile which contains the best and the worst, with many in the middle committing crime as opportunity and or need dictate. The material available suggests that the convicts cannot all be placed in either camp, but is insufficient to categorize the convicts with any precision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bateson, Charles: The Convict Ships 1787-1868, 2nd ed, Library of Australian History, Sydney, 1983.

Bennett, JM & Castles, Alex C: A Source Book of Australian Legal History, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1979.

Chesney, Kellow: The Victorian Underworld, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1972.

Clark, C.M.H. (1): A History of Australia, Vol.I., Melbourne University Press, 1962.

Clark, C.M.H. (2): "The Origins of the Convicts Transported to Eastern Australia 1787-1852", Manning Clark: Occasional Writings and Speeches.

Clark, C.M.H. (3): Sources of Australian History, Oxford University Press, London, 1957.

Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist, Harper & Row, New York, 1965 (originally published by magazine serialization 1837-1839).

Griffifhs, Tom: "Past Silences: Aborigines and convicts in our history-making", (1987) 6 Australian Cultural History 18.

Hibbert, Christopher: The English: A Social History 1066-1945, Guild Publishing, London, 1987.

Hirst, JB: Convict Society and its Enemies, George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1983.

Hobsbawn, E.J.: Industry and Empire, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1969.

Hughes, Robert: The Fatal Shore, Collins Harvill, London, 1987.

Hunt, Alan: Class and Class Structure, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1985.

Hutchinson, Mark: "A Note on Nineteenth Century Historians and their Histories: 1819-1896", (1989) 8 Australian Cultural History 114.

Jones, Howard: Crime in a Changing Society, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1969.

McQueen, Humphrey: A New Britannia, Revised Ed, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1976.

Marriott, Edward West: The Memoirs of Obed West: A Portrait of Early Sydney, Barcom Press, Bowral, NSW, 1988.

Molesworth Committee Report, published London 1983.

More, Thomas: Utopia, Penguin, Middlesex, England, 1965 (first published 1516).

Morton, A.L: A People’s History of England, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1979.

Nicholas, Stephen (Ed): Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.

Prentis, Malcolm D: The Scots in Australia, Sydney University Press, 1983.

Robinson, Portia: The Women of Botany Bay, Macquarie Library, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 1988.

Robson, Lloyd L: The Convict Settlers of Australia, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, 1965.

Shaw, AGL: Convicts and the Colonies, Faber & Faber, London, 1966.

Smart, Carol & Brophy, Julia: “Locating Law: A discussion of the place of law in feminist politics”, in J. Brophy & C Smart (eds), Women in Law: Explorations in law, family and sexuality, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1985.

Summers, Anne: Damned Whores and God’s Police: The Colonization of Women in Australia, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1971.

Walker, N: Crimes, Courts and Figures: An Introduction to Criminal Statistics, Penguin, Middlesex, England, 1971.

Wood, GA: “The Convicts”, (1922) 8 JRAHS 177 (Pt.4)

NOTES

Note 1. See Griffiths pp.26-7. Examples of "forgotten" achievements may be found in Robinson pp.237-8.

Note 2. One currency lad’s view: see Marriott p.26.

Note 3. According to Hughes pp.158-9.

Note 4. Wood p.177.

Note 5. Clark (2) p.98.

Note 6. See discussion by Hutchison at pp.116 & 122.

Note 7. Wood, p.183.

Note 8. Clark (1) p.90 and Shaw pp.148 & 164. Bateson p.379 indicates 25,351 female and 137,398 male convicts (i.e. women made up just under 16% of the total transported).

Note 9. Hughes pp.334-5.

Note 10. Hughes pp.205-9.

Note 11. See e.g Summers pp.267-86. See also Smart & Brophy p.6 et seq.

Note 12. Until 1882 in UK: Smart & Brophy p.10.

Note 13. At least until 1878 in UK: Smart & Brophy p.10.

Note 14. See e.g. Hunt p.93.

Note 15. Emphasised by Summers, pp.267 et seq, but discounted by Robinson.

Note 16. See Robinson, passim.

Note 17. Hutchison p.114.

Note 18. Clark (2) p.100; Shaw p.164; Hirst p.33; Hughes p.159-60.

Note 19. Clark (2) p.105; Shaw p.152.

Note 20. Clark (2) pp.100-102; Shaw pp.152-3.

Note 21. Wood p.183.

Note 22. Shaw pp.165-6; Clark (2) pp.111 & 126.

Note 23. To get a real sense of what the struggle for life was like for the lower classes in the early 19th century Chesney’s book is a must. A great read. Nicholas p.74 cites recent studies of Victorian crime which reject the existence of a separate criminal class.

Note 24. Clark (2) p.106; Nicholas, passim.

Note 25. Clark (1) 94; Clark (2) 113.

Note 26. Clark (2) pp.99-100 & 112-21.

Note 27. Clark (2) p.113; Chesney p.33. This is also implicit in the references to “the dregs of society” by the Molesworth Committee, from an extract of the Report in Bennett & Castles p.1 at p.2.

Note 28. Molesworth Committee Report.

Note 29. Governor Macquarie to the Duke of York, 25 July 1817, in Bennet & Castles, p.6. See also Report by the Late Major General Macquarie on the Colony of New South Wales, to Earl Bathurst, London, 27 July 1822, in Clark (3), p.123 at 125-6. Macquarie’s administration had been under investigation by a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the State of New South Wales by John Thomas Bigge 1819-1821 as a result of agitation by some free settlers. Bigge’s instructions left no scope for humanitarian sympathies: see Earl Bathurst to Commissioner Bigge, 6 January 1819, and commentary in Bennett & Castles, pp.6-8.

Note 30. Minutes of Evidence of Molesworth Committee Report.

Note 31. Hughes, p.262. Catholic priests were not officially allowed in NSW until 1820: Clark (1), p.349.

Note 32. Chesney, p.33. Clark (2), p.116, also compares their conditions but draws a different conclusion.

Note 33. Chesney, Chapter 4, p.99 et seq.

Note 34. Clark (2), pp.112-113.

Note 35. Robson, p.36, had 72% of his large sample as prior offenders.

Note 36. Molesworh Committee Report.

Note 37. Many of the habitual criminals discussed by Chesney clearly had little choice but to continue.

Note 38. Clark (2), p.100.

Note 39. Norton, p.429.

Note 40. Norton, p.425; Hibbert, p.492; Hobsbawm, pp.86 & 155.

Note 41. Clark (2), p.101.

Note 42. Hibbert, pp.489-91.

Note 43. Clark (2), p.109; Shaw, p.151.

Note 44. Averaging 55%over the sample from 1817 to 1840 (min.27% to max.69%): Nicholas, p.208, Table A5.

Note 45. More, p.48.

Note 46. Shaw, pp.148 & 154; Clark (2), pp.133-5.

Note 47. Shaw, pp.150-1.

Note 48. Shaw, pp.147 & 164.

Note 49. Jones, pp.33-4, citing Cohen, Albert K, Delinquent Boys, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956. See also Shaw, pp.161-3.

Note 50. Jones, p.25 et seq; Shaw, pp.159-60.

Note 51. Jones, p.25, points out that juvenile delinquency has tended to increase most in those countries of Europe (post WWII) in which the standard of life is the highest.

Note 51. Jones, p.25.

Note 53. Hobsbawm, p.155.

Note 54. Given the high death rate in the workhouses, and separation of family members, it is no wonder they were desperately avoided: see Hibbert, pp.492-3. Cf. Oliver’s sojourn in the workhouse in Dickens’ Oliver Twist, Chp.2.

Note 55. Hobsbawm, p.93.

Note 56. Clark (1), p.90; Hobsbawm, pp.88-9 & 95; Shaw, pp.127-8 & 152.

Note 57. Hobsbawm, p.126.

Note 58. Hobsbawm, p.160.

Note 59. Although over a series of occurrences one expects the odds of being caught to increase: see Walker, p.35.

Note 60. Walker, p.35. Chesney shows the professional criminals were very skilled at what they did, and that law enforcement was not very effective, especially prior to the 1830s.

Note 61. Indeed the converse may be true i.e. the casual thief could have been less likely to be apprehended than an habitual one, over the lifetime of both.

Note 62. Nicholas, Chp.5.

Note 63. Nicholas, p.75.

Note 64. Nicholas, pp.74 & 82.

Note 65. See Nicholas, p.62.

Note 66. Bateson, p.179, gives one example of indents arriving in 1819, some 19 years late.

Note 67. Bateson, pp.81-2.

Note 68. Nicholas, p.66.

Note 69. See Chesney.

Note 70. Nicholas, p.47.

Note 71. Shaw, p.151, Note 1; Nicholas, p.3.

Note 72. Nicholas, p.85.

Hammell Home page;   About me;   About our ancestors;   My favourite web sites.