Margaret Butler A 'Deserate Character'?

By Dianne Snowden

On 2 September 1845, the convict ship Tasmania (2) sailed from Dublin with 140 female convicts and thirty-seven children. [1] A lengthy report of the ship's sailing, and arrangements on board, was published in the Hobart Town Courier shortly after the ship arrived in Van Diemen's Land on 3 December 1845:

SCENE ON BOARD THE TASMANIA CONVICT SHIP

(From a DublinPaper, September 1.)

As it was expected that the above vessel would sail on Saturday from Kingstown Harbour, a number of persons proceeded to the pier to witness the impressive and melancholy sight. The day was beautiful, the sky was serene, the sea unruffled and smooth as a mirror - all nature was hushed in a hallowed response, and everything indicated peacefulness and happiness; but when the eyes turned to the gloomy form of the convict ship as it lay upon those calm blue waters, a floating dungeon, the prison-home of the felon exile, a sadness came o'er the mind that however bright and lovely, and joyous all things around it seemed to be, within its dark and tomb-like bosom were enclosed many suffering sprits, whose crimes had expatriated them from their native land, and to whom the beauties of the "firmament above and the earth beneath" were but as "a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours." At three o'clock, through the kindness of the commander, William Black, Esq., and Surgeon Jason Lardner, a few visitors were allowed on board. The convicts, altogether consisting of females, amounting in number to 137 women and 37 children, were at this time arranged at the mess table, and had just eaten a plain substantial dinner. The visitors descended one of the two ladders which lead to "the prison," as the place in which the convicts eat their meals, and sleep is called and entered by stooping, through a grated doorway, very much resembling an ordinary cell. This prison is situated under decks, and the mess-tables ... extend about two-thirds of the ship's length ... At the time to which we allude all the convicts were penned-in; some were occupied sewing, some winding thread or cotton into balls; some reading prayers from small time and thumb-worn books; some endeavouring "to make out" the last letter from home, while others were lulling their sickly-looking infants to slumber, or sitting silently and motionless in a state of morbid, moping-melancholy. [2]

According to the ship's surgeon, Jason Lardner, the health of the convicts and children generally improved during the voyage; some of the women, weighed at the beginning and end of the voyage, were found to have gained weight. Fresh potatoes were issued daily to the convicts in lieu of flour, 'and undoubtedly were of service in allowing their diet to be gradually changed'. [3] The ship's surgeon commented in his report that:

The behaviour of the Convicts was on the whole very good. They were very ignorant and made but slight improvement in their education during the Voyage, none were found capable of teaching and but few inclined to learn - their principal offences were against discipline. / A strict attention was enforced to the established routine which not only included regularity but was also conducive to their health. In conclusion I can not help but give testimony to the very liberal manner, in which every thing was furnished for the use of these unfortunate females. / Jason Lardner Surgeon Superior. [4]

The average age of the convicts on the Tasmania (2) was twenty-nine years; the oldest was sixty-six and the youngest sixteen. Most of the women received sentences of seven years, although there were two sentenced to transportation for life; two to fifteen years; and twenty to ten years. The majority were convicted of stealing-mostly clothes, watches, and other property, but occasionally sheep or potatoes. Some were convicted of receiving stolen goods; others of vagrancy. Of the two who were transported for life, one was convicted of poisoning her husband of three weeks; the other of strangling her fortnight-old child. Most of the women had previous convictions, and several had been on the town for varying periods. A few had family members who had been transported; some were tried with their family members or had family members on board. A majority of the women were from Dublin and were housemaids. Over two-thirds were single, and there were more widows than married women. Several of those who were married had been left by their husbands for some time. Seventy-two could neither read nor write; fifty could read; and sixteen could read and write, although some of these only a little. [5]

On board the Tasmania(2) were four women from Tullow, in County Carlow, Ireland, and eleven of their children. The four women were Esther Burgess and her daughter, Mary Burgess; Margaret Butler; and Mary Griffin. All were transported for stealing potatoes.

Margaret Butler No. 770, called Margaret Butler 2 ^nd in the convict records to distinguish her from another Margaret Butler on board, [6] was a forty-year-old farm or country servant, just over 5'3" tall, with a fresh complexion, brown hair and eyebrows, grey eyes, round head and visage, high forehead, small nose, wide large mouth, and round chin. She had a 'hair mole' on the left side of her chin, two moles on the right side of her chin and one on her right eye. She was Roman Catholic and could read. Her native place was recorded as Carlow. [7]

Margaret Butler's trial record, obtained from the State Paper Office in Dublin, gives a full account of Margaret Butler's crime. Dated Thursday, 3 April 1845, it records that Esther Burgess, Mary Burgess, Margaret Butler and Mary Griffin were indicted for stealing a barrel of potatoes belonging to Richard Carr of Tullowland on 4 February 1845. In giving evidence, Richard Carr stated that he had lost some potatoes from a pit at Tullowland on land belonging to Mr Byrne. He visited the pit at a quarter past six in the evening and found it safe. When he next visited the pit, at about half past seven, he discovered that about a barrel of potatoes had been taken out. He stated that there were four kinds of potatoes in the pit and 'an odd white cup thro' the others'. On the same night, at about nine o'clock, Richard Carr found that the police had potatoes corresponding to those which were missing. [8]

Another witness, John Roddy, a constable, was questioned in Tullow on the night of 4 February. Constable Roddy stated that he had concealed himself on the Dublin road from about six to eight o'clock in the evening; he saw the four prisoners there about eight o'clock. Each of them had a bag of potatoes on her back. They were coming towards Tullow from the direction of Carr's Pit. He arrested them. When he tried to arrest Mary Griffin, she attempted to spill potatoes from her bag, but he prevented her. She then tried to run away, as did Mary Burgess, but Constable Roddy caught them. Richard Carr afterwards identified his potatoes! According to Constable Roddy, the prisoners when arrested, were all barefoot. However, he had a pair of shoes, which were claimed by Esther Burgess. The five nails in this shoe, according to the constable, exactly corresponded with the track close by Carr's Pit. Constable Roddy also found a mark of fresh clay on the hands and clothes of all the prisoners. Where he first met the prisoners, he said, was about 40 to 50 perches from Carr's Pit. The prisoners told the witness they had gathered the potatoes about through the county. [9]

The Jury found all four prisoners guilty. The Governor of the Gaol reported that all the prisoners had been convicted several times before of stealing potatoes (Esther Burgess three times and each of the other prisoners twice). The Matron of the Gaol reported that Margaret Butler and Mary Griffin were 'desperate characters and very ill conducted in gaol.' [10] The Court sentenced the four women to be transported for seven years. [11]

It is interesting to consider the accuracy of the Matron of the Gaol's assessment of Margaret Butler as a 'desperate character.' The Gaol Report on Margaret's conduct record does not bear out this assessment: it simply notes that her behaviour was 'indifferent'. If she was a 'desperate character', an explanation may lie in the circumstances which led to the crime being committed.

At the time of the trial, the four women were either widowed or single. Between them, they had at least twelve, and possibly sixteen, children. Eighteen-year-old Mary Burgess was the only one without children. Margaret Butler's conduct record and indent merely note that she was widowed with two children on board. Her petition in Ireland, however, suggests that she had six children. The two children who accompanied her on the Tasmania (2) were ten-year-old William and two-year-old Mary Ann. Esther Burgess was a widow with six children, aged between two and eighteen. Her convict indent reveals that her husband had been dead for two years. All of Esther's children came with her: her eighteen-year-old convict daughter, Mary; fourteen-year-old Elizabeth; ten-year-old Alicia; eight-year-old Jane; five-year-old William; and two-year-old Robert. Mary Griffin's indent suggests that she had four children, three on board. Her conduct record, however, notes that she was married with four children on board. Only three of her children have been identified: eleven-year-old Eliza; six-year-old Mary Ann; and three-year-old Edward. [12] Just how difficult it was for the women at the time that they stole the potatoes is problematic. But all of them, except Mary Burgess, had dependent children and no husband, in a grim economic time in Ireland.

After her sentence had been passed, and while she was a prisoner in Callow County Gaol, Margaret Butler petitioned for mercy. Addressed 'To the most noble the Earl of Heytesbury Lord Lieutenant Governor General and General Governor of Ireland', Margaret Butler's petition, dated 16 April 1845, reads:

That your petitioner was tried at the last Quarter Sessions of Tullow before Henry Hutton Esq. - Assistant Barrister - for stealing a few potatoes and sentenced to seven years transportation. Petitioner begs most humbly to state that she was left a widow with six fatherless children who have been dependant on the bounty of a humane and charitable public for support. Hardship alone induced her and the tears of her wretched orphans compelled her to do what she was sentenced to leave her country for. Petitioner now throws herself on the mercy and clemency of your Excellency that you would be graciously pleased to commute her sentence to any length of imprisonment but, oh, in pity (for) her orphans do not send them from her - as they would be thrown friendless outcasts on the w(orld). Your excellency will see by the undersigned signatures that poverty alone drove her to do what she has done. Petitioner once more craves the clemency of your Excellency's prerogative in her favour and the Hands of her orphans shall be uplifted in prayer. [13]

The note of trial barrister, Henry Hutton, which accompanied Margaret Butler's memorial and trial report to the Earl of Heytesbury, stated that Hutton was not aware of any mitigating circumstances which would render the prisoner a proper object of mercy. On 21 April 1845, Heytesbury responded tersely that the 'Law must take its course'. [14]

In Van Diemen's Land, there is no evidence that Margaret Butler was a 'desperate character' while serving her sentence. She had no offences or sentences recorded on her conduct record. Margaret Butler received her ticket-of-leave on 3 July 1849 and her free certificate on 25 May 1852. [15]

On 24 May 1850, Margaret Butler, described as a thirty-five-year-old servant, married John Shackleton, a forty-two-year-old labourer, in St Joseph's Church, Hobart. [16] John Shackleton arrived on the Marquis of Hastings (2) on 8 November 1842. He was a forty-two-year-old drover and waggoner from Todmington, Yorkshire. He was Protestant and could read. Just over 5'9" tall and 'stout made', he had a fresh complexion, light hazel eyes, brown hair and eyebrows, reddish whiskers, oval face, long visage, high broad forehead, a long nose, medium mouth and a long chin. Part of his little finger on his left hand was missing and he had a scar on the third finger of his left hand. He was tried in Lancaster Salford Quarter Sessions on 11 April 1842 and sentenced to transportation for ten years for larceny. He stated his offence to be stealing some cotton cloth, about 400 yards. He had previously been convicted for seven years, for stealing potatoes, and had served three years at the Penitentiary. His conduct, according to the Surgeon's Report, was 'good'. After his arrival, he was stationed at Southport until 5 August 1845. On 23 September 1846, he was found guilty of larceny under £5, for which he received two months imprisonment and hard labour at Broadmarsh. On 23 May 1848, Shackleton was granted his ticket-of-leave and, almost a year later, on 26 June 1849, he was recommended for a conditional pardon; this was approved on 15 October 1850. On 4 June 1852, two years after his marriage to Margaret Butler, Shackleton received his free certificate. [17]

After a little more than five years of marriage, on Sunday 4 November 1855, Margaret Butler died in the Colonial Hospital of a fracture and contusions. [18] Five days later, the Hobarton Mercury reported that a coroner's inquest to enquire into the death of Margaret Shackleton was held at Mr Parson's Waterman's Arms, Liverpool Street, before Mr A.B. Jones and a respectable jury. [19] The jury, with the coroner and witnesses, viewed the body of Margaret Shackleton, which, according to the newspaper:

presented a shocking spectacle, the face, head, and upper part of the body exhibiting a mass of bruises, and the upper part of the left arm being fractured: there were bruises, also, on other parts of the body. [20]

Dr Downing gave evidence that the deceased was admitted to the Colonial Hospital on the evening of 2 November, as a result of injuries which she had received five days before. He found:

extensive bruises on various parts of her body and especially on the head and face, the scalp was also much bruised and was covered with bloody tumours; the left (upper arm) was fractured and the whole of her arm bruised the pulse was low and feeble and the surface of her body was cold; she was sensible at times but required rousing; she slept during the night but was occasionally delirious, the next morning she was worse and at 7 o'clock on Sunday evening she died. [21]

A post-mortem examination revealed that the surface of her body was much bruised, with scars on several parts and scratches on her hands. It also indicated that the injuries to her head were sufficient to cause death by concussion and compression of the brain. The examination also found that the fracture of the arm had not in any way caused death but had tended to aggravate the head injuries by increasing the deceased's debility. It also noted that the deceased was of a debilitated constitution from habits of hard drinking and the injuries had taken a greater effect than if she had been a healthy woman; she would not have inflicted the wounds to herself unless she had been insane when she might have knocked her head against a wall, or beaten herself with her fists. The report continued that the deceased did not exhibit the slightest indications of insanity. [22] Dr Brock gave similar evidence, with the exception that he attributed the cause of death to a shock of the nervous system and not concussion of the brain. [23]

Another witness, Dr Crowther, stated that he first saw Margaret on the previous Friday when he was requested by a man in Bathurst Street to see his wife, who had been drinking and fighting with her neighbours. Dr Crowther found the woman in bed and in great pain from the injuries she had received. He considered her in great danger, as she exhibited symptoms analogous to 'delirium tremens' and was sinking from nervous exhaustion. He communicated the circumstances to the police and Margaret was taken to the Colonial Hospital. Dr Crowther believed that death was caused by shock to the nervous system; the injuries appeared to have been caused by a severe beating. The doctor was suspicious of Shackleton's communicative manner in reference to his wife's fighting with the neighbours; he inquired how the injuries occurred, and a woman named Ward said that Shackleton had beaten his wife and turned her naked out-of-doors. Ward described Shackleton as a tall, sharp-featured man, with a red face and light hair. From the nature of the injuries, Dr Crowther concluded that they might have been inflicted while Margaret was lying on the ground. [24]

Dr Stokell stated that he had seen Margaret, much bruised, on Friday at Lansdowne Crescent. Muttering severely, she had said that 'John' had beaten her. Considering her in danger, he advised her to go to the hospital but she refused. Dr Stokell gave his opinion that death was caused by shock to the nervous system and not by concussion or compression of the brain. [25]

From the evidence of the various witnesses, the story was pieced together. On Monday, 29 October, cries of murder were heard in Shackleton's house. On going there, some of the neighbours found Margaret on the ground in her chemise, with her husband standing over her and beating her. He had torn the chemise from her body and kicked her on the arm. She was then taken from the house and a blanket was put over her. It was shown that Margaret had told several people that her husband had killed her by beating and kicking her. On being asked why he had done this, Shackleton had said that he had given his wife £1 on Sunday to get some dinner, but she had not done so. He also said that if his wife recovered, he would never beat her again but would go clean out of the country. A witness named Mary Ann Ward stated that both Shackleton and his wife were in the habit of getting drunk on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and then always quarrelled. It was also shown that Margaret had been beaten on several occasions since Monday 29 October, and one witness named Angelina Stewart stated that Shackleton more than once told her that he would kill his wife. [26]

The coronial jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against John Shackleton and the coroner issued a warrant for his arrest on that charge. [27] A month later, the newspaper reported that Shackleton had been apprehended by Constable Gordon and lodged in Her Majesty's Gaol. According to the newspaper, 'The evidence adduced at the inquest was of a fearful description; the Prisoner was brought before the Chief Police Magistrate on Monday, and remanded to gaol to await his trial.' [28]

On 4 December 1855, John Shackleton, described as a fifty-nine-year-old labourer, was tried for the murder of Margaret Shackleton, and was sentenced to 'life in penal servitude' at Port Arthur. It is interesting to compare John Shackleton's 1855 convict description with his earlier one in 1842. His hair had changed from brown to grey and he no longer had whiskers, his complexion had changed from fresh to ruddy, his head from oval to large, his visage from long to oval, his high broad forehead was of medium size; his long nose and chin were also of medium size, and, curiously, his eyes had changed from light hazel to blue. His record notes, 'to freedom 8 April 1872'. He was granted a free pardon on 24 March 1873, when he was seventy-one-years-old. [29] Just on six years later, on 7 April 1879, John Shackleton died, of old age, at Brickfields Pauper Establishment. His death record stated that he was born in England and was an eighty-three-year-old labourer. [30]

William and Margaret (McIntyre) Butler.
William was the son of convict Margaret Butler,
and spent two years in the Queen's Orphan School

Of Margaret Butler's children, only one has been traced. On 9 December 1845, just after arrival in Van Diemen's Land, her son, William Butler, was admitted to the Queen's Orphan School at the age of ten; he remained there until 17 January 1847 when he was 'Apprenticed to the Rev. Richard Walsh of Geelong.' [31] He died in Cooma, New South Wales in 1909. His death certificate revealed that he had lived sixty-two years in New South Wales and two years in Tasmania. [32] He married Margaret McIntyre, a shepherd's daughter whose mother was a convict from Sligo, and they had a large family, including a daughter named Crispena Maud, who married John Snowden. [33]

In Van Diemen's Land, Margaret Butler's daughter, Mary Ann, initially remained with her mother, but was admitted to the Orphan School on 13 May 1846, when she was two years old. She remained there until 10 May 1851 when she was discharged to her mother, 'T.L'. She was readmitted at the age of eleven and a half on 7 December 1855, after her mother's death. On 17 January 1859, she was apprenticed to Mrs Mary O'Boyle[?] of Hobart Town. [34] I have not been able to trace her after that date.

Margaret Butler was my great-great-great-grandmother, and the great-great-great-great-grandmother of Thomas, James, Alexander and Jack Gordon, of Richmond, Tasmania.

---

 

---

This story was originally published in 2004 by the Writers Group of the Hobart Branch of the TFHS Inc. in the publication PROS and Cons of Transportation A collection of convict stories.

Not only does this publication celebrate the cessation of transportation of convicts to Van Diemens Land, it also celebrates the work of the Family History Writers Group. This group was formed in 2003 to assist members who wanted to write their family histories. The monthly meetings stimulated great interest and enthusiasm.

The original introduction may be found here.