Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

3 corrections, most recently by LynHudson-Williamson - Show corrections


New Theory Challenged.

( BY G. A. KING )

Considerable controversy has arisen as a result of the publication in a recent issue of   the Herald of an article dealing with the   historic Rose families. In that article the old theories in regard to the Rose families were disputed by Mr. Alfred F. Rose (of     Cooma) and Mr. Alfred Rose Payten (of Campbelltown) and they reached the con-   clusion that Thomas Rose of Mount Gilead, Campbelltown was the eldest son of Thomas   Rose a free settler who arrived in New South Wales by the ship Bellona in 1793-the younger Thomas Rose being 13 years of age when he arrived with his parents.

Several correspondents have written chal-

lenging this contention and reaffirming that their were three Thomas Roses who figured     in the events which have led to so much dis-

cussion for many years past. Actually, it is thought that there were four or more Thomas Roses at the period of Sydney's early history which is covered by the discussion, but only   three of them played parts in the events out of which arose the elusive Rose millions. The correspondents generally return to the former contention that the first Thomas Rose (the free settler) arrived in the Bellona in 1793; that the second Thomas Rose was the   eldest son of "Bellona Thomas Rose"; and   that the third Thomas Rose (of Mount Gilead) arrived in New South Wales in 1798 by the Barwell. It is also contended that "Mount Gilead Thomas Rose" was not related to   "Bellona Thomas Rose."

For instance Mr. E. E. Buttsworth (of Fassifern), chairman of the Rose Family In-   vestigation Committee, describes the Roses as (1) Thomas Rose of the Bellona; (2) Thomas     Rose of Mount Gilead; and (3) Thomas Rose,   hotelkeeper of Sydney- all three arriving in the colony in 1793 and subsequent dates.

"Thomas Rose of the Bellona," writes Mr.   Buttsworth, "received grants of land at Lib-

erty Plains, but as the soil was not suitable for farming he subsequently settled at Wil-  

berforce and died there in 1833. His eldest     son, Thomas was married in 1800, and some   time after, in company of his brother Joshua he returned to England. He was absent for several years. On his return to New South Wales he found that his wife had left and it is supposed she went to the South Coast. Young Thomas settled down at Wilberforce and reared a large family by a second wife.   His sister, Sarah Buttsworth (my grand-   father ? [grandmother] died at Wilberforce on July 14, 1867, and he died five days later at the age of 87 years and was buried in the Church of England Cemetery at Wilberforce. I have seen a certified copy of his will and it gives a     detailed description of the disposal of his pro- perty. My eldest sister (still living) has a   vivid recollection of her great uncle Thomas."

Mr. Buttsworth expresses the opinion that the three signatures referred to in the previous article were not written by the same person.

Mr. Herbert J. Rumsey (president of the   Society of Australian Genealogists) declares that the names of the three Thomas Roses concerned in the discussion appear in the census of New South Wales taken in 1828. This census, states Mr Rumsey, contains the names of (1) Thomas Rose, 80, Bellona, 1793, came free, farmer Wilberforce, 85 acres; (2) Thomas Rose, 47, Bellona, 1793, came free, farmer, Wilberforce, 25 acres; (3) Thomas Rose, 51, Barwell, 1798 absolute pardon, farmer Ap- pin, 2460 acres. Mr Rumsey adds that "I have since found in my notes from the 1823-25   general muster in London I had copied the Rose entries and I have also found some   notes from the 1814 census and all give both the Thomas Roses under discussion. "Barwell Rose" had the Rose and Crown Hotel at the corner of King and Castlereagh streets in 1825 and was described as 'property owner,  

Sydney,' in 1814, while the other man is on the Hawkesbury lists in both cases, as also

their wives."

Other correspondents have also written giv-   ing many details of family history, but ex-

pressing the opinion that there were three Thomas Roses as stated by Mr. Buttsworth

and Mr. Rumsey.

Messrs. A. F. Rose and A. R. Payten are   making further inquiries in the light of the mass of information now available and it is confidently hoped that the result of the pre-

sent controversy will result in the solving definitely of the salient points in the lives of

the historic Rose families.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by