William Roseveare
This is an interesting story.
While he is not related, my excuse for including this is that he
was friends with the Chilcotts and came to Australia with them.
Most of our ancestors who
came to Australia in the early days were driven by poverty, or
guests of the penal system, or in search of gold. William was
none of these. He was a wealthy landowner in Cornwall with a
wife and large family, who got one of his servants
pregnant, Did his wife kick him out in disgust? Or was
it a mid-life crisis? And why would you take a 14 year old son
and an 11 year old daughter with you? He must have taken
capital with him, because he is obviously prosperous in 1845.
Testimony
in the court cases makes it clear that William and his children
came
on the ship with the Chilcotts. But why is he not on the list of
passengers? Charles' testimony sounds as if he met him on the
ship,
though they were already acquainted. It could be a simple
administrative error? I recall seeing one passenger list that
did not
have Mary Burton, though I can't find it now. The ship sailed
London
and stopped at New Plymouth on the way to Perth. On reflection
the
Chilcotts could have boarded in London. They were bringing a lot
of
supplies with them, and you would imagine they would have been
loaded
in London. The Chilcotts would have boarded well in advance. On
the
other hand scarpering with a pregnant servant is something a bit
more
impromptu. So William might have boarded in Plymouth. There
would be
multiple passenger lists prepared: one at each departure, and
one
carried by the ship and lodged on arrival at final destination.
Each
one would be copied and updated by hand. So an update error in
New
Plymouth is very plausible.
A timeline might provide an overview
1807 17 November. He marries Sarah Phillips in
Lanlivet Cornwall.
They have eleven children, the last born in 1825
1829 2 May (approx) Ship sails from Plymouth, with
William, two of his children and Mary Burton on board
1829 23 August. - He arrives in Perth on the
Marquis of Anglesea
He was accompanied by two of his children, John aged 14, and
Jane aged 11|
Jane appears in Court Case 1 as Mrs Fawthrop, having married
Captain James Fawthrop.
John appears in Court Case 2.
1829 19 November. He marries Mary Burton in
Hobart
They had thirteen children, the first Martha born 12 December
1829
1845 31st May - Court Case 1 was brought
against William for the recovery of £3 8s. for goods supplied to
Mrs. Rosevear, the lawful wife of defendant, who was abandoned
by her husband in England some eighteen years ago. (see below)
1846 6 May - Court Case 2 was brought by James Fawthrop for
board and lodging for Mary/Burton Roseveare.
The court cases make
interesting reading, and are at the end of this web page
What can we glean from all this?
It does seem pretty definite that William Rosevear and two of
his children arrived on the Marquis of Anglsea, in spite of
the fact that none of them appear on the ship's manifest.
Sometime prior to the first court case, her children sent for
their mother and paid her passage. She then lived with her
daughter.
Charles
Chilcott knew what was going on. Camelford where the Roseveares
lived was only 5 km from Tintagel, so they were well known to
each other before the voyage.You have to feel sorry for Mary
Burton. Pregnant to her employer, she went to an unknown future
on the other side of the world.
Does the settlement of board and lodging for Mary mean that
Sarah had been taken back as wife?
You have to wonder what
William was thinking in electing to defend these cases, given
the inevitable result and publicity. And what a nasty defence
lawyer.
Jane Rosevear courtesy
RobertWagner61 on Ancestry
An interesting piece of
research by Jenny Mitchell suggests that on the voyage out,
Charles Chilcott may have been passing William Roseveare off
as his brother:
“ An interesting point taken from the book
"Land Looking West" .. in a letter from Sir James Stirling
to his brother on September 7, 1829, he mentioned that his
household consisted of a "Mr. & Mrs. Kelly; Mr. &
Mrs. Chilcott and their brother and three children for
outdoor work; a black cook, a white servant as steward, and
a woman to take care of the children".
Sir
James Stirling was Governor of the new colony,
Court Case 1
Report
from
Launceston Examiner Sat 31 May 1845, Page 5 “Court of
Requests.
Sourced from Trove,
Newspapers and Gazettes
“This
court sat on Thursday ; there were thirteen cases in the thirty
pound, and about sixty in the ten pound court : only one case
deserves a report :
Mr. Gleadow appeared for the plaintiff, and
stated the particulars. The action was brought for the recovery of
£3 8s. for goods supplied to Mrs. Rosevear, the lawful wife of
defendant, who was abandoned by her husband in England some
eighteen years ago.
Defendant came to this colony and married a
servant girl whom he brought from England with him, and with whom
he was now living. The lawful Mrs. Rosevear was sent for by her
children, and having arrived in the colony found it impossible to
reside with her husband under such circumstances, but urged her
claim to support. The evidence was as follows:—
Mr. E. Brodrigg proved supplying the goods to
Mrs. Rosevear on account of her husband.
Mrs. Fawthrop deposed that she was daughter of
Mr. and Mrs. Rosevear, and came to the colony with her father
about seventeen years ago ; she was then eleven years of age ; she
recollects her mother in England who always lived with defendant
as his wife ; from her earliest childhood she had known them only
as her father and mother; they lived together, and were regarded
by all -acquaintances as man and wife ; there came out with the
family a girl named Mary Burton, who had lived as house-servant
with them in England about twelve months prior to their departure
; that girl, who was now known as Mrs. Rosevear, had resided with
the defendant ever since ; the vessel they came out in went
originally to Swan River, but witness's father declined remaining
there, and proceeded with his servant and family to Hobart Town ;
shortly after their arrival defendant represented that his wife in
England was dead, and two or three days afterwards married Mary
Burton ; witness was in church at the time of the marriage, but
could not say she was actually present when the ceremony was
performed; she, however, heard the bridegroom represent to the
clergyman that he was a widower, and when asked to produce the
letter containing the intelligence of his wife's death, made an
excuse that he had left it on board ship ; from that time to the
present they had lived as man and wife, and Mary Burton was known
as Mrs. Rosevear.
Mr. Rocher appeared for the defendant, and
cross-examined Mrs. Fawthrop, who further deposed that she
recollected the breaking up of the establishment at home ; the
furniture was sold off, and her mother turned out of doors ; she
sent for her mother who, since her arrival, had been residing at
witness's house ; was present when the goods were procured from
plaintiff ; there was no guarantee given for payment, but she
supposed, as a matter of course, if Mr. Rosevear would not pay
somebody else must.
The commissioner questioned witness, and
elicited that the family was in respectable and comfortable
circumstances at home, but that when defendant abandoned his wife
she had to seek employment, and had ever since, a period of
eighteen years, supported herself in humble service.
Mr. Gleadow, in reply to the commissioner,
stated that Mr. Rosevear occupied a farm down the river, and was
known to be a man of considerable property.
The commissioner threw down his pen and
remarked, with a strong expression of indignation, that he was
surprised any one should stake his reputation by suffering such an
exhibition of his character in public court.
Robert Cock deposed that he was in the employ
of defendant in England ; he rented a very large farm in Cornwall,
and was considered a man of property ; witness also recollected
Mrs. Rosevear, who was treated in every respect as wife of the
defendant ; they had wealthy and respectable connections, and were
people of considerable station in society ; the female now living
with Mr. Rosevear was house-servant to the family in England
whilst witness was also in their employ ; has seen her at Mr.
Rosevear's at his farm on the Tamar, and recollected her well.
Mr. Charles Chilcott also deposed that he knew
Mr. and Mrs. Rosevear in England, and went to Swan River with
defendant, his family, and Mary Burton. During the passage witness
had frequent conversations with Rosevear, and asked him how it was
he had abandoned his wife. He replied that during Mrs. Rosevear's
sickness he had contracted an intimacy with his servant girl.
Witness remonstrated against such conduct, and asked if he had any
complaint respecting her moral character or conduct as his wife.
He again replied no—except that she was a bad temper ; and having
seduced the girl he considered it a point of honour to maintain
her, and had made up his mind that she should live with him all
his life. The defendant and his family were in opulent
circumstances at home, of high reputation, and most respectably
connected.
Mr. Gleadow had another witness, but observing
that enough had already been proved to satisfy the commissioner,
declined proceeding any further.
Mr. Rocher called no witnesses, but commented
upon the evidence. He remarked how singular it was that the
alleged wife of an opulent and respected gentleman had been so
suddenly discountenanced by the relatives, that she was compelled
to seek for service, and argued that it implied misconduct of some
sort, even supposing she had been the wife of defendant. He
referred to the circumstance of people living unlawfully together
as man and wife, as a common practice which resulted in the
exclusion of the parties from the society of former friends, when
the criminality of their state of existence became known.
Upon the law of the case, he maintained that it
was essential to establish the marriage, as proof of
responsibility for debt, by the same evidence as would be
requisite in proof of bigamy, and there being no legal testimony
in support of either a first or second marriage, the law could not
recognise parties as man and wife who had been separated for
eighteen years. Mr. Rocher hoped, although the amount at stake was
small, that the commissioner would view the case as one of great
importance from the great principle at issue.
The chairman at once stopped Mr. Rocher, and
having referred to a case which took place in some other part of
the colony, which he said was erroneously reported, stated
distinctly, that no matter how many cases might result, he should
view each according to its respective merits, as an act of justice
should be performed, independent of all consequences.
In delivering judgement the commissioner
expressed himself feelingly and at considerable length, upon the
moral and legal aspects of the case. He could not believe that any
solicitor would recommend his client to defend an action, which
involved such a risk of reputation. Mr. Rosevear had been, and
might be still, with the exception of this one act of his life, a
respectable and well disposed man, but how frequently was it found
in human life that some wrong step is taken failing to retrace
which to the point of divergence, man is led away step by step
until he becomes engulfed in the depth of moral misery. That
appeared to him (the commissioner) to be the position of the
defendant. The first question as to the law of the case was, had
the debts been contracted? The delivery of the goods was proved.
There were some women placed in similar circumstances, who acting
under what is termed "high spirit" ran their husbands recklessly
into debt and rejoiced in the triumph they achieved by taxing
their pockets ; but in the present case, the articles were of a
description necessary for subsistence.
The second question was, whether Mr. Rosevear
was responsible. Upon this the commissioner remarked, that
although they had no positive evidence of the marriage ceremony,
they had the admission of defendant, in his communication to Mr.
Chilcott, and the testimony of several to whom for years they were
known only as man and wife. Mr. Hone adverted with a strong sense
of moral shame to the false conception of "honor" which abandoned
a lawful wife, and cohabited with a servant woman. He had no doubt
that Mrs. Rosevear was entitled to the protection and support of
her husband, and gave judgement for plaintiff in accordance with
both law and conscience. “
Court
Case 2
1846 6 May
This was an action brought by Mr.
Fawthrop against Mr. Roseveare,to recover £22 17s., being for
the board and lodging of "Mary," the reputed wife of defendant.
Mr. Charles Chilcott, examined by Mr. Gleadow
— I knew Mr. and Mrs. Roseveare in England ; they lived near the
market town which I frequented ; at the time Mr. Roseveare sold
his property in England, I saw Mrs Roseveare (the lady now
present) in the house ; I sailed from England in the same ship
with Mr. Roseveare and Mary Burton, who acted as his servant ;
he told me he had left his wife in England ; that he had seduced
Mary, and therefore had a right to protect her ; he subsequently
assigned as a reason for marrying Mary Burton, that the person
who had lived with him in England as his wife, had no legal
claim to that title. The English Mrs. R. always bore an
irreproachable character ; passed there for his wife, and was
admitted as such into the most respectable society. Mr. and Mrs.
R. were respected and looked up to, on account of their conduct,
connections, and means.
Mrs. Mary Chilcott — I resided near
Camleford, in Cornwall, and recollect Mr. and Mrs Roseveare
living together upwards of fifteen years ; Mrs. R. bore as good
a character as any woman I ever knew.
Mr. John
Roseveare— I am son of defendant, and left England when I was
fourteen years of age ; my mother lived with my father until a
fortnight before we sailed ; my parents had eleven children, five
of whom are now living ; my father and mother were visited by most
respectable persons, and no doubt can be entertained but that my
mother was married. Mary Burton was our servant, to whom I believe
my father was married at Hobart Town ; I have no doubt the lady
present is my mother ; she has lived with Mr. Fawthrop since her
arrival, and I consider ten shillings a week a very reasonable
charge for her board and lodging. My father has seven children by
Mary Burton ; they still live as man and wife ; Mrs. Fawthrop and
myself paid my mother's passage ; we considered it our duty as
children, to assist our mother in recovering her rights, as my
father is living here in affluence.
Robert Cox. — I worked for about eleven months
for Mr. Rosevear in England, and during that time, always
considered Mrs. R. as my mistress ; the defendant always addressed
her as his wife.
Mr. Rocher, contended that there was no
evidence to prove the marriage, which could only be done by
witnesses or properly certified documents—but Mr. Gleadow quickly
produced precedents, where "general reputation" only was
necessary, with which view of the case, Mr. Hone, the former
Commissioner of the Court had concurred.The Jury instantly returned a
verdict for the full amount, £22 17s.
If you
have additions or corrections to this page, please contact us
Bones in the Belfry home page
Page last updated - 2025E
