The Crime & Punishment of Emanuel & Vaiben Solomon
The crime and punishment of Emanuel and Vaiben Solomon.
(David Solomon. November 2007)
A considerable volume of research on the life and times of our two convict relatives,
Emanuel and Vaiben (1) Solomon, has been undertaken and published in Australia (2,3).
The story following their release is well-recorded, including the contribution they
made to the development of the colonies of South Australia and New South Wales;
Levi and Bergman (2) refer to the brothers and their relatives as “one of the most
remarkable emancipist families in Australian history”. However, there are a number
of aspects of their crime and punishment which have been less fully researched. The
aim of this note is to bring together all we can find on this chapter of the story from
published works and public records, including some background on what they are
likely to have experienced.
Brothers Emanuel and Vaiben Solomon, then probably aged about 15 and 14
respectively, were arrested at a boarding house in Northallerton on the evening of the
16th October 1816 (4). They were charged with having broken into a farm house the
previous day and stealing a number of items of clothing; most of these items were
found with the boys at the lodgings. What they were doing in the area, and the
circumstances surrounding their alleged crime, are best described in the words of a
press report of their trial (5), which is reproduced below.
Following their arrest, they are likely to have been held in custody locally and to have
appeared before a local magistrate, who committed them for trial at the Durham
Assizes. They would then probably have been taken to Durham Gaol, where they had
to wait almost ten months for their trial; this would have been the old Northgate Gaol,
as the replacement, although being built at the time, did not receive its first prisoners
until 1819.
The following account of the charges and trial are from the Durham Assizes Minute
Book (6) (DURH 15):-
Wednesday morning 6th August 1817
Present the Lord Chief Baron.
Petty Jury:- Thomas Richmond, Robert Harrison, William Russell, Robert
Gibson, George Curry, George Burrell, William Crozier, Thomas Craddock,
Lancelot Craddock, William Crowe, James Wilkinson, Richard Dale.
The King against Emanuel Solomon and Vaiben Solomon.
The Indictment charges the Prisoners by the Names of Emanuel Solomon late
of the Parish of Heighington in the County of Durham Labourer and Vaiben
Solomon late of the same Place Labourer for that they on the fifteenth Day of
October in the 56th Year of the Reign of King George the Third about the Hour
of eleven in the forenoon of the same Day with force and arms at the Parish
aforesaid in the County aforesaid the Dwellinghouse of Thomas Prest there
situate feloniously did break and enter (no Person in the same Dwellinghouse
then and there being) and one Coat of the value of ten Shillings, one other
Coat of the value of ten Shillings, one waistcoat of the value of five Shillings,
one Cloak of the value of ten Shillings, one piece of cloth of the value of one
Shilling, and one pair of Stockings of the value of six Pence of the goods and
chattels of the said Thomas Prest in the same Dwellinghouse then and there
being found then and there feloniously did steal take and carry away against
the Peace. The Prisoners severally plead Not Guilty and upon their Trial they
are both found not guilty of breaking the Dwellinghouse but Guilty of stealing
the Goods and Chattels in the Indictment mentioned. It is therefore ordered
that they are severally transported to Parts beyond the Seas for the Term of
seven Years.
By the Court.

The court case was more fully reported in the “Durham County Advertiser” :-
CROWN SIDE (Before Chief Baron Richards).
Emanuel Solomon aged 16 and Vaiben Solomon his brother, aged 15,
travelling Jews were indicted for feloniously stealing, taking, and carrying
away on the 15th day of October 1816, several articles of wearing apparel,
from the house of Thomas Prest, situate in the parish of Heighington.
Thomas Prest, the prosecutor, said he was a farmer, and lived at Haughton
Bank, in the parish of Heighington; that on the morning of the 15th October
last he went from home with his cart and that he met the prisoners on the
road, coming towards his house. When he returned at night, he was informed
of the robbery. He immediately made enquiry after those young men, whom
he had seen in the morning, and learned that they had gone towards
Darlington, to which place followed them; and in consequence of information
he received there he went to Northallerton, where he arrived about nine
o’clock on the following night, and found the prisoners at the house of Mrs
McMain. They (the prisoners) were asked if they had any clothes to sell; and
they answered, they had only some white stocking. The elder prisoner had
witness’s (word illegible) coat on at the time. The constable went into the
house, where they found, in the prisoner’s possession, another coat, a jacket, a
pair of stockings, and a silk muff, all witness’s property. This was all they
found at Mrs McMain’s. Witness with the constable, then went to the house of
Matthew Thompson, also of Northallerton where he found his wife’s great
coat, it having been sold to Thompson. Prisoners were then taken into
custody.
Elizabeth Prest, daughter of the prosecutor, sworn – says that she left the
house at about 10 o’clock on the 15th of October last, to go to her mother, in
the fields, where she was shearing; fastened the doors securely when she went
away; returned about 12 o’clock; did not discover then that the house had
been entered. Stopped in the house during the remainder of the day.
Witness’s father came home about 5 o’clock; thinks it was a little before her
mother came in the field.

John Lamb lives about two miles from Thomas Prest’s house. The prisoners
passed him on the road, about a mile and a half from Prest’s; they were going
from Prest’s house towards Darlington; one of them had a bundle carrying; it
might be about the size of a bundle which contained two coats; the younger
prisoner had a small bundle, and his shoes, which he had put off, under his
arm. They were also seen on the same day by another witness (Jockey) going
towards Darlington who described them in a similar manner with the last
witness.
Elizabeth McMain, sworn – lives at Northallerton. Witness keeps a lodging
house; remembers the prisoners at the bar coming to her house on the evening
of the 15th of October last, one of them was carrying a bundle of cloathes,
which he offered for sale. When the bundle was opened she saw a black silk
cloak, a piece of ticking, a jacket, a man’s coat, a woman’s coat, three of four
old white stockings and an odd muff. Prisoners told witness they had bought
them at Newcastle (These articles were produced by the constable, all of them
identified by witness as being the same the prisoners brought into her house,
and sworn to be the prosecutor that his wife as being their property). The
elder prisoner said to this witness “did you see the woman’s silk muff taken
out of my bundle?” Witness said she did. The woman’s great coat was here
shewn to Mrs McMain, and she knew it as being the same which the prisoners
had in her house on the night above stated.
Mr Watson, the constable, corroborated the evidence of the prosecutor
respecting the discovery of the property, which he has had in his possession
ever since; and the apprehension of the prisoners.
In defence, the elder prisoner said his father was not able to keep him and his
brother at home; he therefore procured, by his assistance, a box of jewelry
and other articles with which he and his brother travelled for sale; that they,
were in the habit of buying or taking old cloathes in exchange for their goods;
that they exchanged their jewelry for the cloathes in question, with a man
whom they met on the road near Darlington, on the 15th of October last. Had
no witness to the bargain, but his brother, who confirmed his statement.
The jury returned both the prisoners Guilty. To be transported seven years.

Levi (7) (1976) and Levi and Bergman (2)(1974) state that the boys were found guilty of
breaking into the house from which the clothes were stolen; however, the record from
the court itself (above) states that they were found not guilty of “breaking the
dwellinghouse” but were found guilty of stealing; the offence is recorded as “grand
larceny” in the Calendar for Assizes for 1817. This distinction is important, and
hearing the verdict of “not guilty” of house breaking must have been a great relief to
the boys – for at the time this crime carried the death penalty. Of the 16 people found
guilty at the August session of the Assizes, no less than eight were sentenced to be
hanged, including one man who was found guilty of “breaking a dwellinghouse in the
day time no person being therein and stealing goods of the value of five shillings”, an
apparently lesser crime than Emanuel and Vaiben were charged with. Had the boys
been found guilty of “breaking the dwellinghouse” their relative youthfulness would
not necessarily have saved them from the gallows; there are records of 15 and 16 year
olds being hanged in 1819, and even a 14 year old boy in 1830.
The next action appears to have taken place on September 24th (although there is some
confusion regarding dates – see below), as the following entry in the Court Rolls (6) is
preceded by the statement that the court is adjourned until that date:-

The King against William Dobyson, William Greensit, John Walker, Joseph
Stephenson, James Murray, John Henderson, Robert Cloughton, Emanuel
Solomon Vaiben Solomon and William King.
A letter having been received from the Secretary of State requiring the
Prisoners to be removed to the Hulk at Woolwich and committed to the
Charge of John Henry Capper Esq Superintendent of Convicts. It is ordered
that the keeper of the gaol do forthwith proceed by land to Woolwich with the
said Prisoners and deliver them to the Custody of the said John Henry
Capper.
By the Court.

From Durham to Woolwich is a journey of at least 250 miles. Quite how the
prisoners were conveyed to Woolwich is uncertain – presumably they were either
taken by horse-drawn vehicle or they were marched.
Incidentally, the above list of prisoners to be taken to Woolwich includes a number
whose sentence had been “to be hanged”. This indicates that they had been reprieved
and that their punishment had been reduced to transportation, as was increasingly the
case at the time for death sentences for crimes other than murder.
The “hulk” to which the boys were dispatched was the Justitia (8), one of a series of old
ships moored on the Thames, with others at Portsmouth and Plymouth, which had
been converted as prisons. Some prisoners served out their terms in a hulk, usually
being put to work in the adjacent dockyard. According to the record book for the
Justitia (9) the group of prisoners from the August Durham Assizes, including Emanuel
and Vaiben, were “received” on September 21st 1817, clearly at odds with the date
given for the last actions in Durham.
The boys would have spent several weeks on the prison hulk before they departed for
the Antipodes in late December. The lack of comment in the “Gaolers report” column
against their names and prisoner numbers (1892 and 1893) in the Justitia record
book (10) indicates that they were well behaved during their stay at Woolwich. The
hulks were notoriously unpleasant, although we have little direct information about
how our boys fared. The following description from the words of Joseph Lingard (11)
who was incarcerated in the Justitia (possibly not the same hulk, but a replacement)
awaiting transportation 1835 gives an idea of what the boys had to endure:-

On the 15th of January I was taken to Woolwich in a van, and put on board the
Hulk, Justitia; a three decker. On arriving, I found six hundred prisoners in
the same condition as myself. My own clothes were immediately taken from
me and others given to me, not very warm ones, as one might very well see
through the cloth.
Many persons are apt to imagine that transportation to the hulks but a light
thing, but however, were they to try, they would find themselves much
mistaken; the Captain ordered one of the guards to take me down to the
blacksmith’s shop, and to look me out a pair of irons which weighed in all
eighteen pounds, these were riveted onto each leg, a chain from each went
across a ring in the middle, to which a rope was fastened around my waist to
keep them up. I was sent out to work in the Arsenal, with as much rattle about
me as a timber carriage has. I remained ironed in this condition for three
weeks, night and day. I was obliged to get a man to lift my irons into my
hammock, I was not able to do it myself. These were very cold bed-fellows.
When three weeks were expired, there came down a Bay Ship, to take
prisoners to New South Wales; she came from Bristol and her name was
“Prince George”. The next morning after breakfast at the guard unlocks the
gate with a book in his hand, calls over those prisoners’ names who are
appointed to go abroad. No man knows till the moment his name is called,
who is to go – I proved to be one. As soon as called, the person goes on deck
with his can, spoon and hammock, then to the blacksmith to have his irons
struck off, and a pair of Bay irons put on; he is stripped, washed and a fresh
suit of clothes put on.
One hundred prisoners were called up and sent off. This was the twenty third
ship which has called on the same business since I came here. In the
afternoon we were marched down to the launch, by the first mate and guards.
We all went on board of the boat, and rowed down to the ship, and embarked
for New South Wales.

We have no information as to whether Emanuel and Vaiben received visits from any
of their family, still living nearby in London, whilst on the hulk. According to
Bateson (15) farewell visits by family were allowed.
As something of a postscript, a Parliamentary Inquiry was called into “the General
Treatment and Condition of the convicts in the Hulks at Woolwich” in 1847 (12),
resulting in a report that ran to more than 600 pages. This followed an article in the
Times by Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, MP for Finsbury, accusing the Superintendent
of Convicts J H Capper [the very same as into whose tender care our boys were
entrusted] with gross neglect of duty and mismanagement of the hulks. The inspector
was Captain William John Williams and his conclusion was that the system
represented by the hulks was “utterly disgraceful to a civilized and christian country”.
According to a bookseller’s description of a copy of the report for sale recently, “the
investigation carried out by a Prison Inspector makes some of the grimmest reading of
all prison reports. Conditions of the hulks could hardly have been worse.
Cleanliness, even on the hospital ship, was non-existent. The diet caused scurvy,
regulations for punishment were completely disregarded. Superintendent Capper was
found to have been submitting reports on things he was not personally inspecting.
The elderly Capper was removed from office and the hulks gradually phased out of
use.”

Emanuel and Vaiben finally set sail from Woolwich on about December 17 1817
(sources vary) on the Lady Castlereagh (13), never to set foot in England again. On
board was a traveller, W B Cramp, who had set sail some months earlier in the
convict ship Tottenham only to run aground in the Thames estuary, seriously
damaging the ship. Cramp provided some details of the voyage (14):-
“I had not waited long in London, before another vacancy occurred on board
His Majesty’s Transport Ship Lady Castlereagh, lying at Deptford, bound for
the same port. Shortly after I had joined her, we sailed to Woolwich, and
received on board our guard, which was composed of a detachment of his
Majesty’s 46th regiment of foot, and after receiving a portion of our convicts,
we proceeded on our passage to Portsmouth; we received another portion
from Sheerness, and in two days arrived at Portsmouth. The remainder of our
prisoners not being in readiness, we were forced to bring up and moor ship a
cable each way.
On the 20th of December we received our convicts, and the following day we
made sail.”
The Justitia records (9) again generate some confusion regarding dates. Against the
names of the Solomon boys is the statement that they were transported on October 31
1817, whereas we know that the Lady Castlereagh did not depart from Woolwich
until at least the middle of December.
The Lady Castlereagh was launched in 1803 as an Indiaman. She had just been fitted
out for the transport of convicts and the trip with the Solomon brothers was her first,
and indeed only, voyage to Australia with prisoners. At 842 tons she was at that time
the largest convict ship, and was considered to be a distinct improvement for its
passengers:-
“In 1817 the Navy Board altered the standard design of the prison by dividing
it into three distinct compartments, separated by open iron railings. The
object was to segregate the juvenile from the more hardened offenders and at
the same time permit a freer circulation of air. The first transport to be fitted
out to this plan was the Lady Castlereagh, which arrived at Port Jackson on
April 30 1818, and, according to Mcquarie, the new design was a marked
improvement. He reported that the prison was better lighted and better
ventilated than previously had been the case”.

Bateson also quoted from the report of a ship’s surgeon, Peter Cunningham, on a later
ship fitted to this specification:-
“Two rows of sleeping berths, one above the other, extend on each side of the
between decks, each berth being 6 feet square, and calculated to hold four
convicts, every one thus possessing 18 inches space to sleep in – and ample
space too.”
Cramp (14) provides frustratingly little information about the prisoners who were his
fellow passengers on the Lady Castlereagh:-
“The prisoners, during their voyage, behaved themselves with great propriety,
considering the variety of characters we had on board. We arrived at New
South Wales on the 26th of April 1818, after a pleasant voyage.”

The Lady Castlereagh arrived at Port Jackson, New South Wales on April 30 1818,
129 days after leaving England, about average for that period. Thirty nine of the 300
prisoners were disembarked for Sydney, but the remaining 261 were bound for
Tasmania; it is unlikely that they were allowed to go ashore in Sydney (15) , even
though it appears they were in harbour there for more than a month. Cramp (14) reported
the retention of prisoners on board thus:- “Government not being disposed to receive
all our convicts, we were taken up to proceed to Van Diemen’s Land…..and arrived in
Van Diemen’s Land after a pleasant passage of six days”. Bateson states that
Governor Macquarie took the decision to send most of the prisoners on to Tasmania
without the knowledge of the authorities in England, and paid the ship owners £2 per
prisoner and provided the food for the voyage.
After off-loading her cargo of prisoners in Van Diemen’s Land the Lady Castlereagh
sailed off to India carrying troops. She was badly damaged in a storm while at anchor
at Madras, and probably written-off (14); certainly she never again carried convicts to
Australia .
Both boys continued to get into trouble after their arrival. According to Levi and
Bergman (2), Vaiben had three bouts of punishment for being disorderly in church and
for being absent from the church parade muster. For these he earned five weeks hard
labour and 25 lashes. Emanuel in the meantime received 25 lashes for escaping into
the forest, 25 lashes for neglect of duty and 50 for being in possession of an iron pick.
Then on March 3 1821 the two boys were caught stealing clothes, and were sentenced
to transportation to the infamous penal colony in Newcastle, NSW. Records (16) show
them arriving in Sydney on the Medway, being held for a period in Sydney Gaol
before being moved on to Newcastle on May 28 on board the Snapper. Emanuel’s
entry in the Certificate of Freedom Book (18) refers to this as follows; “Sent to
Newcastle 3 March 1821 from VDLand for three years in irons for a robbery”, but
there is no such record for Vaiben. Emanuel was punished again by receiving 25
lashes in January 1823 for “repeated irregularities”. On September 15 1823 the
records show Vaiben in a list of prisoners removed from Newcastle to Port Macquarie
on board the Mermaid. No mention is made of Emanuel at this time; this may have
been the first time the boys were separated since their arrest. However, both were
finally released in Sydney.
Vaiben’s Certificate of Release (17) was dated August 5 1824, seven years and one day
after his conviction back in Durham, and gives the following details; calling, pencil
maker; age 22; height 5 feet 5 inches; complexion sallow; hair brown; eyes brown.
Emanuel’s certificate (18) was dated one day after his brother’s, with the following
details; calling, labourer and pencil maker; age 24; height 5 feet 6 inches; complexion
dark sallow; hair brown, eyes dark.
And the rest, as they say, is history.

1 The spelling of Vaiben varies considerably, especially in later records (Varben, Vabian, Vabien) but
Vaiben is the usual spelling in the UK and transportation records.
2 Levi J S and Bergman G F J (1974) “Australian genesis – Jewish convicts and settlers 1778-1850”.
London: Robert Hale and Company, 360 pp.
3 Richards E S (1975) “The fall and rise of the brothers Solomon”. Journal of Proceeding of the
Australian Jewish History Society, Vol VIII, Part 2, 1-28.
4 There is significant doubt about the ages of the two boys. Throughout their trial and transportation
Vaiben is listed as the younger by one year. However, in most Australian records Vaiben is listed as
the older boy. It may have been that the boys saw some potential advantage during their trial and
sentencing in pretending to be younger than they really were. If this is the case it was a pretence they
maintained throughout their confinement, as the ages given in their certificates of release (see below)
are consistent with the court record.
5 Durham County Advertiser
6 PRO, Durham 16/03
7 Levi J S (1976) “The forefathers- a dictionary of biography of the Jews of Australia (1788-1830)”
8 There were at least two, and maybe three, different ships with the name Justitia used at Woolwich
between 1779 and 1847; there is confusion and contradiction within the various works regarding when
each was brought into and retired from hulk service. This one appears to have become a prison hulk in
1814.
9 “A list of the convicts under sentence of transportation and hard labour on board the Justitia Hulk in
the river Thames, commencing First of August 1814” PRO, HO9/4.
10 Index to Justitia. PRO, HO9/5
11 Lingard J (1846) “A narrative of the journey to and from New South Wales” Privately published,
Derbyshire.
12 Report and minutes of evidence taken upon an inquiry into the general treatment and condition of the
convicts in the hulks at Woolwich. London: HMSO, 1847, 613 pp.
13 Convict ship registers, PRO HO11/2.
14 Cramp W B (1823) “Narrative of a voyage to India; of a shipwreck on board the Lady Castlereagh;
and a description of New South Wales”. London, Sir Richard Phillips and Co, pp 43.
15 Bateson, C (1969) “The convict ships”. Glasgow, Brown, Son and Ferguson, 2nd Ed. 421 pp.
16 State Records of New South Wales, Colonial Secretary Index, 1788-1825.
17 State Records of New South Wales, CF number 040/2469, SR Ref 4/4423, Film 601.
18 State Records of New South Wales, CF number 068/2515, SR Ref 4/4423, Film 601.

David Solomon, Foundry Farm, Kiln Lane, Redlynch, Salisbury, Wiltshire,
SP5 2HT, UK.
Tel +44 (0)1725 512523. Fax +44 (0)1725 512964. Email djsolomon@onetel.com