John Spilsbury convict sent to NSW

[kennett]

However, I do not see BMD certificates scanned and attached there. This lack of documented support always opens questions and doubts about the accuracy of family trees.

Indeed it does.   There is a lot of utter garbage being posted on the Internet,  and the problem is getting worse,  not better.    The current wank for posting illegible scans of certificates on trees,  is unfortunately no assurance that the family tree is not garbage.  These days I find trove to be often more informative than certificates.   Even where certificates exist,   people are often making assumptions that person X born in year Y  is the same person X who married or died later.  There is always a degree of probability involved.

As I pointed out, I am related to some of those Spilsburys,  and I am quite certain about what I say about the ones I am connected to.   I am not related to others,  and that is why I use expressions like "may have"  and "appears to be"  when referring to them.  The OP has referred to her "brick walls"  and I have made a suggestion of something which, in my opinion, it might be constructive for her to look into.

[kennett]

Famous name Spilsbury, Prof Spilsbury was a pioneer in Post Mortem Examination in England, late 1800's?

I think he dealt with the Ripper Victims.

Indeed, he did.  There is no apparent link to any of the Australian Spilsburys, though.   In fact that professor is a nuisance as you have to trawl through millions of references to him on Trove, to find anything else.

[NSWP]

The above John is way to old. He would have been born around 1788.

How is a person who ( according to the age claimed when they died )  was born around 1788,   "too old"  to have been a convict to New South Wales ?

Indeed many 'criminals' in their 60's and 70's were transported to the 'Colonies.'   

[sparrett]

However, I do not see BMD certificates scanned and attached there. This lack of documented support always opens questions and doubts about the accuracy of family trees.

Indeed it does.   There is a lot of utter garbage being posted on the Internet,  and the problem is getting worse,  not better.    The current wank for posting illegible scans of certificates on trees,  is unfortunately no assurance that the family tree is not garbage.  These days I find trove to be often more informative than certificates.   Even where certificates exist,   people are often making assumptions that person X born in year Y  is the same person X who married or died later.  There is always a degree of probability involved.

As I pointed out, I am related to some of those Spilsburys,  and I am quite certain about what I say about the ones I am connected to. I am not related to others,  and that is why I use expressions like "may have"  and "appears to be"  when referring to them.  The OP has referred to her "brick walls"  and I have made a suggestion of something which, in my opinion, it might be constructive for her to look into.

Ah, well that's a good thing.

Sue

[giblet]

The above John is way to old. He would have been born around 1788.

How is a person who ( according to the age claimed when they died )  was born around 1788,   "too old"  to have been a convict to New South Wales ?

I didnt say he was to old to be a convict. He was to old to be the John that the original poster was querying about. Her John was born in 1817.

[kennett]

He is indeed too old to be the one born in 1817,  and sent to Australia in 1840 aged 23.

There is at least one other John Spilsbury in Australia before 1840,  his marriage is recorded in 1831,   and the failure of his marriage is evidenced by the newspaper ads he placed in 1832 stating that his wife had absconded for no reason,    and that nobody should give her credit.     And he was illiterate,  so quite possibly a convict.   The list of convicts is not complete.

[sparrett]

 

He is indeed too old to be the one born in 1817,  and sent to Australia in 1840 aged 23.

There is at least one other John Spilsbury in Australia before 1840,  his marriage is recorded in 1831,   and the failure of his marriage is evidenced by the newspaper ads he placed in 1832 stating that his wife had absconded for no reason,    and that nobody should give her credit.     And he was illiterate,  so quite possibly a convict.   The list of convicts is not complete.

You seem to assume a connection between  illiteracy and criminal activity leading to transportation That is  a bit surprising.

Can you elaborate on this?
 

Sue

[kennett]

Your capacity to presume or confect the existence of presumptions by other people is extraordinary !

I am not assuming a link between illiteracy and criminality, at all.

Let me spell it out for you.

The "lower class"  ( for want of a better term,  lest you start making presumptions about assumptions again ),  were not much in the habit of placing ads and announcements in the newspapers.   You will observe,  in the newspapers of the day,  many advertisements,  announcements and random pieces of information about the gentry, the merchants, the officials, the professionals, the graziers and the trades.   

You will see next to no information about the small-holders,  labourers,  and others.  Many of these were former convicts,   many were not.  And among the former convicts,  many had no track record of criminal misconduct in Australia.

In that period,  the gentry, merchants, officials, graziers and tradesmen were generally literate,   and many of the smallholders, labourers, workers and ex-convicts were not.

I see it as somewhat unusual,  to have an advertisement placed in the newspaper, as John Spilsbury's advertisement concerning his absconded wife,  which specifically draws attention to his illiteracy,  particularly as there seems to be no obvious reason why it would be mentioned at all.    I have read thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of these newspapers,   and that still strikes me as somewhat odd.  The point being,   that being illiterate is not inconsistent with being a former convict.  The use of the double negative in the preceding sentence is intentional and has semantic meaning.  This should not be taken to mean an assumption is implied that illiteracy implies criminality,  or that criminality implies illiteracy,  or the literacy implies an absence of criminality.  In fact,  to say that A is not inconsistent with B,  is to specifically deny making any of those assumptions.

Nevertheless,  the fact that the ad specifically draws attention to John Spilsbury's illiterate state,  highlights the unusualness of his ad,  because most such ads were placed by middle class rather than lower class people.

[giblet]

so we still don't know exactly where Henry came from.

Have you obtained his marriage cert? It might have info on it that would help.

Also a point to remember is when searching newspapers that the family notices can have errors just the same as cert. can. Newspaper articles and certs. both depend on how good the informants information is. I wouldnt just rely on Trove.

Also from what i have found your Henry parents were Henry Spilbury and Margaret D'Arcy and Henry was a jeweller. Have you checked out any Spilbury's who were jewellers?

I found the below link,, might be worth checking out to see if there is any connnection 
Dated 1826
Mr Spilbury, jeweller, of Poland street, Oxford street  etc etc

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2Nk7AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA139&lpg=RA1-PA139&dq=Spilsbury+jeweller+poland+street&source