View Full Version : George Best
My George Best was a convict who was sentenced at the Maidstone Assizes in 1790 and transported to Australia on the William and Ann. He married Martha Chamberlain in 1797, produced many children and has an overwhelming number of descendants. He died in 1836 at Seven Hills NSW reportedly at the age of 78.
George, however, appears to have arrived from outer space. There are many trees on ancestry with the story of George's life but no actual proof. I have disproven the myth that his parents are James and Frances nee Shelly, their George lead an honest and well documented life and died in England.
Ancestry hints have given me a new lead and many trees have latched onto this baptism as it fits with the rough age range people suspect for George. I managed to find the original poster of the baptism and his/her tree ends with George being born. They do not claim him as My George. They do not know their George's history.
The new George was born in Dorset, which isn't that close to Kent, but some people do travel. Could someone please have a look and see if they think this new George might be mine? Or disprove it?
The baptism is here: George, son of George and Grace (https://search.ancestry.com.au/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=lQv10294&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&indiv=1&dbid=2243&gsfn=george&gsln=best&gsfn_x=1&gsln_x=NN&cp=0&new=1&rank=1&uidh=5ai&redir=false&msT=1&gss=angs-d&pcat=34&fh=35&h=1524149&recoff=&ml_rpos=36)
Side note for anyone picking this up on Google: George's wife Martha was not baptised at St Benet Paul's Wharf, London, England, father from memory William. William had 2 daughter's named Martha and both died in infancy.
Can you remind us what George did for a living before he was transported?
I believe he was a farmer.
He stole property from William Cheeseman the Elder.
The stories are he was a farmer, which I believe as he was granted land in Australia to farm. Where he farmed ranges from Kent, Sussex or Surrey.
Have to say, pass.
I've been looking at Wiltshire, also full of Bests.
Gut feeling is no, unless, say he was a soldier.
Thanks for looking. No, he wasn't a soldier. The baptisms don't give an occupation for his father either which doesn't help. I'm trying to find a death for George or Grace to see what that might do. It does look as though George's sister marries Grace's brother though.
kiterunner
06-10-19, 15:03
This is the link to the old thread about him:
http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=27011&highlight=george
kiterunner
06-10-19, 15:10
There is a George Best buried at Rampisham 12 Oct 1805 but no age shown:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/2243/32435_239671-00312/1526524?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdbid%3d2243%26gsfn%3dgeo*%26gsln%3 dbe%253ft%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln_x%3d1%26cp%3d0%26hc% 3d20%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26uidh%3dvm5%26redir%3df alse%26msT%3d1&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults
Copied from a page on thetreeofus website:
The indictment against George Best records that he was a labourer of the Parish of East Peckham, however, a contemporary newspaper reported that George Best had to be brought by a writ of habeus corpus from Surrey to face the charges laid against him in Kent. George Best was tried at the Lent Assizes in Maidstone, Kent, in 1790 and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to transportation for life.
I don't suppose it's stated from where in Surrey he was brought?
Merry, no it doesn't and no one can produce the writ or the newspaper. I've not been able to find them. That information was written about 30 years ago or more by a man who had sadly died before I found his online work to ask for more information. It is now copied and pasted and taken as gospel but I've never been able to verify anything except that he was tried. I've seen papers about his trial but haven't scanned it so I can't check them but I don't think it gave any details about him except the crime.
Kate I missed the burial. It could be his father too although they had children after George who were baptised in Frampton.
Sorry, I forgot I had posted about George before.
The Kentish Gazette printed details of the assizes. The March 1790 pages are not online with FMP yet, but an earlier assize convicted someone who was transported with George, so I would say the information is probably quite correct.
I know he was tried at Kent, sentenced to death etc but whether he was from Kent or Surrey I'm not sure about. I've not seen that mentioned in official papers, nor have I found the contemporary newspaper. If it's there it will turn up one day.
OH loves me today and more importantly knew where the book I was looking for was. George Best's actual trial papers say he was a labourer from East Peckham, Kent.
If he was born about 1757 (is that from his age at death?), then he was over 30 when he committed this offence. I find it difficult to believe this was the first thing he had done though of course it might be the first time he had been caught!
Have you eliminated the GB who married in Tonbridge in 1789? (4 miles from EP). I don't have time to see if he had loads of children and died in Kent!
The image (banns register) shows him to be of EP!
Of course I don't know the marriage actually took place as I've only found the banns reg so far, but if it's correct that he did his burglary on 24 Nov 1789 then that's in the week between the first and second reading of the banns! Maybe Mary Summers dumped him when he was arrested?!! Mary was 'of Tonbridge'.
There's a marriage for a Mary Summers to Thomas Clark in 1796 in Tonbridge (banns and actual marriage entry on FMP).
There is only one baptism for a Mary Summers within 10 miles of Tonbridge at a sensible date for someone marrying in the late 1780/90s and she was bap 15 Aug 1762, the dau of Wm and Mary Summers.
Have you eliminated the GB who married in Tonbridge in 1789? (4 miles from EP). I don't have time to see if he had loads of children and died in Kent!
No I haven't but I'll look into it. It looks like Mary took a while to recover from the failed engagement if she then married in 1796. I guess she'd want to make sure the next husband was financially secure.
I don't think George and Martha had to ask for permission to marry, I think he had been pardoned by then. A shame really as they often were denied a couple of times if they had been married back home and then permission was granted.
George died in 1836 aged 78 which is where the 1757 year of birth comes from. I always take YOB as an estimate with convicts but I'll double check and see if any of the convict logs give dates to back it up or disprove it.
Thanks Merry.
George's age is consistent with the age at death on the 1828 census. There is a consistent lack of age documentation for convicts. Only one form even asks for it and it is blank for everyone.
I looked at the banns of marriage. I have nothing to say when George was captured but would it have taken weeks? It would appear he turned up for all 3 readings of banns.
George and Mary did not have children in Kent, assuming they married.
I've googled writ of habeus corpus and it seems it should be lodged by the prisoner or someone on their behalf, to determine if they were unlawfully detained. So the sentence above that he was taken from Surrey to Kent seems wrong.
George and Mary should have been married at either Tonbridge or East Peckham (after those banns) but there doesn't seem to be a marriage at either of those places.
I agree that it seems strange than the banns were read three times when George was busy being arrested, if it's the same George and if he was arrested immediately after the crime was committed. Maybe at first no one knew who had committed the burglary, but then it became apparent George had vanished. Someone must have had an idea where he had gone (somewhere in Surrey ?) and so people were sent to try and find him and were successful. I could see all that taking some time. There was no obligation for the future bride and groom to be in the church when the banns were read. Maybe the vicar believed in innocence until guilt is proved in a court of law?!! Mary Summers may not have been so forgiving!
It doesn't look as if there had been people named Best living in East Peckham for generations, so I am doubtful that there were any other George Best's in the vicinity. I'd place a small bet on this groom being the George you are searching for. It doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other really, except to back up the evidence that he was 'of' East Peckham when he was arrested.
Looking at a pdf here:
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=aabfj
I looked at the refs at the end...these two looked interesting:
PRO (Public Records Office, London) Trials transcripts: Kent Lent Assizes 1790 (PFF 6A77CL ASSI 35/23015 and XC 3237 CL ASSI 31/16)
The first of those appears to have a typo so ASSI 35/23015 should read ASSI 35/230/5 which led me to two results at TNA:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_p=1700&_q=Assi+35%2F230%2F5
(I'm not sure if those are actually both the same document?)
The other ref, ASSI 31/16, led me to the first result here:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_p=1700&_q=ASSI+31%2F16
Have you seen any of these docs?
Of course all three document details include the remark, "This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded." :rolleyes:
I saw the PDF many years ago and I have to confess I skimmed it and read it for George's history. It's still quite interesting and he really did well for himself. One thing it did say, was that George, himself, said he was from Sussex. (Ritchie, 1971, p. 83 so I remember)
I'd love to read the Ritchie book and the information from the Bigge Commisssion but it is not easy to access.
I tried to find the papers on the TNA earlier today but I'm not very good at it. I think I have a partial copy of one of those pages, although I don't know if it is them or something else. Can I email you and you attach it here? The first reference you posted can't be ordered for copy or viewing at all. I wonder why? The second one, if I'm reading it correctly, is the minute books. I wonder how much information that would contain?
PS: Is Sussex the hard to find county? Do I have to go through the historical society?
PPS I also think the George who didn't marry Mary above is probably mine. It gives a glimpse of him.
familysearch has 1 George Best baptised in Sussex between 1750 and 1770. George son of Charles baptised 1769 at Bramber. There is an image too.
There's also one at Brighton Sussex on Ancestry in 1755.
I haven't quite taken in what you have said except can you email me, so I'll pm my address now, and then off out!
There's also one at Brighton Sussex on Ancestry in 1755.
That's closer in age and more likely.
I'm off to bed soon. Thanks for your help.
kiterunner
08-10-19, 12:57
Bear in mind that there is a George Best / Elizabeth Saunders marriage in Brighton in 1786, and they seem to be having children baptised up to 1795 (or possibly 1801.)
Yes, I just saw that. There are two GB marriages, both to an Elizabeth. One in 1786 and the other about 10 years later (roughly). I couldn't see a burial for the first Elizabeth, so wasn't sure how many GB's there were! Probably no spare ones, in any case!
kiterunner
08-10-19, 16:28
I saw the PDF many years ago and I have to confess I skimmed it and read it for George's history. It's still quite interesting and he really did well for himself. One thing it did say, was that George, himself, said he was from Sussex. (Ritchie, 1971, p. 83 so I remember)
If I'm looking at the same PDF, it says that George was christened on 28 Aug 1791 on the convict ship. Was that normal for people who had already been christened in infancy, or does it suggest that he hadn't been christened before that?
kiterunner
08-10-19, 16:31
I believe he was a farmer.
He stole property from William Cheeseman the Elder.
The stories are he was a farmer, which I believe as he was granted land in Australia to farm. Where he farmed ranges from Kent, Sussex or Surrey.
When googling for "George Best" "East Peckham", quite a few items come up which say that the indictment states that he was a labourer.
If I'm looking at the same PDF, it says that George was christened on 28 Aug 1791 on the convict ship. Was that normal for people who had already been christened in infancy, or does it suggest that he hadn't been christened before that?
That's exactly what I thought, but I was looking at something (!) to do with this George Best and I saw that other people were also baptised on the convict ship (who and where that was, I don't remember now), so I presumed they baptised people to be on the safe side, if perhaps they didn't know if they had been 'done' already.
https://ebgnqq.bl.files.1drv.com/y4mSQwKKvX2lbD2IYJxwFTv7iCSc4RSIC_3-s86kHK-VN9q-IM-KLve0ChTBdQ_vYx1r_5Vq-Hds2e7AcMx_K342Z6FRqCb_tKLjG8OvhFMI8hyUGe31_hZHeqH wvpI6mrfpGKodTcUm5pfjOiaA-wiZ3WzTi2nCTjz1dkPoEYaGH3l5zWSP6he8fChQjwqYuk05_c6 kvtYOpMtRNlaVnfvhA?width=1024&height=576&cropmode=none
Hmmm, that's probably not big enough, but when I posted it at the larger size it was absolutely massive!
kiterunner
08-10-19, 18:51
It's big enough for me. And confirms that he was a labourer.
I missed the bit where it says he was baptised on the convict ship. The William and Ann was a bad ship to be on, I think there was a higher than normal mortality rate on that ship. It could account for the baptisms. To be sure I suppose, unless those baptised were looking unlikely to survive.
George was a labourer when convicted but he had been a farmer at some point in the past, it's how he was able to be successful in Australia.
The image is larger that what appears in the book I got it from. I'm glad it came out clearly.
If I'm looking at the same PDF, it says that George was christened on 28 Aug 1791 on the convict ship. Was that normal for people who had already been christened in infancy, or does it suggest that he hadn't been christened before that?
Can you post the link for that PDF? I'm not sure it is the same one Merry posted.
That date is around the time the ship arrived in Australia so it wasn't for people who may not have survived the voyage, but they may still have been very ill.
That date is on this pdf:
file:///C:/Users/Sarah/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/Welman%20Notes%20from%20thetreeofus%20(1).pdf
It's the same date the ship arrived.
You could buy the book for about AU$27 plus postage!
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780855610272/evidence-Bigge-reports-New-South-0855610271/plp
The 6th one down is both volumes and the cheapest (I think it's Volume 1 that was quoted as a source in the various GB pdfs). The postage cost is only a lot because I'm looking at it from the UK.
Isn't it available in a library over there?
Labourer tends to be regarded as a perjorative term, but could cover a stockman, ploughman etc. Young men would hire themselves out by the year, acquiring various skills. Given the desire and opportunity, I imagine many would be able to run a farm.
Merry, that link didn't work but I think I found it. The source is from someone on Genes Reunited, which worries me. Nothing else I looked at today said that so I'd love to know where they got it from. I also read that 7 people died on the William and Ann so I'm not sure why I believe it was such a bad ship. Someone has their facts wrong somewhere.
Merry none of my local libraries have the books. I found a seller that isn't too far away and I'm wondering if I could pick it up and save on postage but finances as tight and I'm debating how important they are.
Phoenix that is true. I do think George had history though. He said himself he was a farmer and I don't think he would have been given the opportunities he was given as quickly as he was given them without the experience.
kiterunner
09-10-19, 15:12
This is the link to the PDF that I was looking at:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjnrL-eu4_lAhX7ThUIHUm3AwQQFjAAegQIBRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wilcoxessite.com%2F%3Fdownloa d%3DWelman%2520Notes%2520from%2520thetreeofus.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1H2x3J15s9DytUG6L2UWHY
I guess it is the same one since the source looks to be GR.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.