Last updated:

March 27, 2020

‘An Innocent Pentonvillain: Thomas Drewery, chemist and exile 1821-1859’, Provenance: The Journal of Public Record Office Victoria, issue no. 14, 2015. ISSN 1832-2522. Copyright © Dorothy Small

Dorothy Small began researching her family history well before the Internet was a key resource. Since retiring from full-time employment she has enjoyed volunteering and researching at a variety of organisations, including Public Record Office Victoria. She now volunteers at the Williamstown library and Puffing Billy Railway, Belgrave. She is also the secretary of the Williamstown Historical Society.

Author email:


During my family history research I stumbled upon an intriguing story of an innocent Pentonvillain named Thomas Drewery. Thomas was wrongly convicted and sentenced to transportation. The correspondence clearly showed he never accepted his conviction or the injustice that had befallen him. This article explores the story of his fight to be reunited with his family. Among the records held at Public Record Office Victoria (PROV) is VPRS 2877 Inward Registered Correspondence I [Land Branch], which includes correspondence discussing the vexing question of payment for his family to come to Melbourne. Thomas had assistance from several quarters; one was a stranger, a convict serving ten years in Van Dieman’s Land (Tasmania). In Melbourne Thomas arrived as an exile, and found work in his profession as a chemist. He established a business in Elizabeth Street, served as a councillor and went on to manage a hotel. He succeeded in reuniting his family. In the correspondence I discovered the harsh British legal system and the devastating effect it had on Thomas and the bleak circumstances that it inflicted upon his family. Through my research into these invaluable PROV resources, Thomas’s story can now be told.



Let me introduce you to a Yorkshireman, Thomas Drewery, a family man living in Kingston Upon Hull, England. Thomas had a chemist store only streets away from where he was born in Hull. In July 1845 he went on a holiday to Leeds with friends. Thomas with his friend Abraham Wilkinson left Leeds on Friday 8 August and went by train to York. The holiday ended abruptly in York, on 12 August 1845, where he was apprehended and charged with theft and taken to Wakefield prison. This had devastating consequences for the rest of his life.

The resources of Public Record Office Victoria (PROV), especially the Inwards Registered Correspondence of the Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, hold the story of Thomas’s struggle to be reunited with his family.

The crime blamed on Thomas took place in August 1845 in Wakefield, Yorkshire. A stranger walked into a public house to hire a horse and gig. He explained he needed to go to Stanley Colliery and would return late that evening. He never returned.[1] The stranger gave his name as ‘… Mr Drewery of Hull, Coal Merchant’.[2]

At this time Thomas was in Leeds with Abraham Wilkinson unaware of the crime in Wakefield which was 10 miles away. On Friday 8 August, the two men left Leeds for York. Thomas was arrested the following Tuesday. At the trial the prosecution presented three eye witnesses who were employees of the publican. These witnesses agreed that the theft took place on Monday 4 August at 1.30 pm.[3] The defence counsel presented one witness, Abraham Wilkinson:

[Abraham] … swore that Drewery was … in Leeds, 10 miles distant at the very moment of the alleged felony … jury not believing Wilkinson, but the other three witnesses, found Drewery guilty, and he was sentenced to seven years transportation.[4]

There would have been no charge for Thomas to answer if he had been in Hull at his usual place of work because there would have been a number of witnesses to testify his innocence.

Over the months in Pentonville prison, Thomas wrote three petitions to the Home Secretary.

In the 1840s in England, when a person was convicted of a criminal offence there was no right to appeal the conviction as there was no court of criminal appeal. The only avenue for appeal was for a prisoner to petition the Home Secretary. Under the then prison rules, convicts in Pentonville prison were permitted to write and receive only one letter every six months. The petitioner might ask for clemency and refer to their previous good character and standing in the community. Often other family, friends or work colleagues would write a petition in support of the prisoner.

After serving eighteen months of his seven-year sentence Thomas was selected to be transported on the ship the Joseph Soames.[5] When the Joseph Soameslanded at Port Phillip on 24 September 1847, all 249 exiles were given a conditional pardon; a condition of the pardon was that they were not allowed to return to England until their sentence had been served.[6]

Thomas wrote to his wife Elizabeth and explained, ‘… arrived at Geelong on the 24th [September]-(my birth day). I remained on board a few days, then took steamer for Melbourne. I had a situation offered at Geelong, but the salary was beneath my notice in this country’.[7]

In England, Elizabeth had help from a local Hull solicitor Edward Sidebottom. He told the family he would only take the case if he was certain Thomas was innocent. He worked through the trial notes and the evidence, and took statements from ‘four credible witnesses’.[8] With fresh evidence from new witnesses Sidebottom was convinced Thomas was innocent.

Sidebottom wrote a petition on behalf of Elizabeth; as did Thomas’s former employer William Hay. The petition stated the good character of Thomas was exemplary. Between March and June of 1846, Sidebottom enlisted the assistants of the borough members of parliament to secure a pardon for Thomas in their petitions to the Home Secretary. It was the Home Secretary who decided the outcome of each of these petitions. The Home Secretary wrote to Sidebottom explaining he had seen the full report of the evidence at the trial. He was of the opinion that the declarations by the new witnesses that Sidebottom had presented had not been made on oath, nor tested through a cross examination. He therefore could not contemplate placing any weight on this new evidence.

Despite the months of legal work by Sidebottom, the Home Office in Westminster rejected each of the petitions. At that time all of Thomas’s legal channels had been exhausted. Without a legal right of appeal the system made it difficult for anyone to prove they were innocent.

And there Thomas’s case would have halted but for a confession letter which found its way to the Hull Packet and East Riding Times newspaper. This letter was written by a serving convict named John Webster.[9] He addressed his letter of confession to the Reverend Mr Walter the religious instructor at Hobarton Van Dieman’s Land (now known as Hobart, Tasmania). Walter realised the importance of the letter and promptly forwarded it to an acquaintance, Mr Barkworth in England. The letter read as follows:


… In the month of July or August, 1845 … I took the first train … to Wakefield, in Yorkshire. I went to one of the principal inns … Whilst in conversation with the waiteress [sic] … I enquired if I could have a horse and gig … I told the maid … that my address was Mr Drewery, of Hull, coal-merchant, that I was going to Stanley Colliery, and that I should return the same evening. I drove past Stanley, and made my way back to Newcastle. On the Saturday following, the gig was sold by auction … Last night, whilst conversing with a fellow prisoner, he asked me if I knew Mr Drewery, a druggist, in Hull; he told me that he was transported for stealing a horse and gig in the summer of 1845 … I was convinced that Mr Drewery had been transported innocently, and … I was the guilty party. It is for the benefit of Mr Drewery and his suffering family that I make these facts known to you, sincerely hoping … an innocent injured man may be restored to his friends … Yours, a wretched Convict, John Webster

The article concluded with the added comments:

There can be no doubt as to the genuineness of the letter and … will … clearly … establish the innocence of poor Drewery, to the satisfaction of the present Secretary of State, and the public.[10]

Unfortunately Webster’s letter was not believed by the British government. Their attitude was to doubt the statements ‘one convict made to relieve another of the offence of which he had been convicted’.[11] Again Sidebottom wrote, this time to the new Secretary of State Sir George Grey:

… drawing your attention to one or two material points … had Drewery rearly [sic] intended to steal the horse and gig, he certainly never would have given in his own name … the description given in Webster’s letter is a correct one.[12]

John Webster had accurately described the crime which he could only do if he was the guilty person. When John had the conversation with the fellow convict in Van Diemans Land, it was six days after the Joseph Soames had sailed for Australia. It would be six months before the letter of confession would impact on Thomas’s circumstances.

A month after Thomas arrived in Port Phillip he wrote to Elizabeth, and his letters were published in the Hull Packet and East Riding Times newspaper. In his October letter he explained how he had been employed by Dr WB Wilmot MD, the coroner and magistrate for Port Phillip. ‘The situation is to manage the business at the Melbourne Medical Hall I have agreed for twelve months, at £50 per year, with house to live in, and all found.’[13] The letter then described how he heard the news that the convict John Webster had confessed to being the guilty person:

… in Hobart Town … a book kept … for prisoners to make any remarks, found therein something to this effect – John Webster states that a person of the name of Drewery, formerly a druggist in Hull, has been transported for seven years, charged with an offence of which he himself is guilty and that the said Drewery has not the slightest knowledge of the same.

My dear, here are fresh proofs of your husbands innocence … I hope you will give this publicity in the press, to erase any stigma my position may have brought upon you and friends.

The only compensation I ask is that government will send you and my dear children out to me respectably, not as the wife of a convict …[14]

Thomas wrote in his letters that he was aware of the social and financial hardship his conviction would have on his family. He wanted his wife to publicise his pardon in an effort to erase the social stigma his conviction would have brought upon his wife and children.

There was no doubt Elizabeth endured hardship supporting herself and her two young children. Elizabeth had to live in a town where people knew her husband had been convicted. It was no surprise that Thomas would ask for family and friends to support his wife. Thomas acknowledged that his conviction had brought stigma upon his family. It would seem unlikely that Elizabeth would have been able to gain employment with a husband convicted and transported. Due to financial hardship Elizabeth moved in with her mother.

In his December letter Thomas urged Elizabeth to join him in Melbourne. His wife was keen to join her husband but she had no money to pay for the family’s passage to Melbourne. This would be the topic of many letters between Thomas, the British government and the solicitor Edward Sidebottom.

In England events moved in favour of Thomas through the legal efforts of Sidebottom. He wrote to the Hull borough members and lobbied the government to establish whether it would pay for the passage of the Drewery family.

The newspaper also continued to highlight the family’s predicament. The Hull Packet and East Riding Times explained that it was raising a public subscription for the Drewery family:

… subscription will have been raised previous to her [Mrs Drewery] departure, sufficient to enable Drewery to begin business at Melbourne, and thereby maintain his wife and family in a respectable manner. Mr Sidebottom has already received between £50 and £60 on his behalf.[15]

Thomas’s case had become known to other parliamentarians. In a speech in the House of Commons Mr Ewart MP asked Sir George Grey, Secretary of State, what he was going to do about Thomas Drewery’s situation?[16]

The Times newspaper reported:

The question asked by Mr Ewart MP, was the Secretary of State aware of the ‘facts … and, what measures would be taken for the relief of the innocent man’. Sir Grey replied, ‘… that an inquiry had been instituted … there were circumstances attending this case which called for an inquiry.’[17]

After this inquiry, Sir George Grey recommended to Queen Victoria to grant a free pardon to Thomas. This pardon would restore Thomas’s rights, remit the original sentence and entitle Thomas to a return passage to England paid by the British government. The Hull Packet and East Riding Times reported:

Whitehall, 5 Jan 1848, Thomas Drewery is pardoned … Mr Sidebottom … received the following letter from the Home Office:

Sir, Secretary Sir George Grey having carefully considered your application on behalf of Thomas Drewery I have the satisfaction to acquaint you that under all the circumstances of the case, he has felt warranted in advising her Majesty to grant the prisoner a free pardon.

The newspaper report continued:

Since the announcement of the Free Pardon to Drewery, several letters have been received on the subject. The following letter from Mr Clay relates … to the compensation of Drewery and his family …

Montague-square, Jan. 11, 1848

My Dear Sir,

I am truly glad to hear of Drewery’s pardon, which is owing entirely to your great exertions … making to the poor fellow some compensation for the injustice society has inflicted on him … if the Home Office does little or nothing, voluntary subscriptions, will do the rest. Pray accept my portion of the gratitude which is due to you from every body, for your exertions in the cause of justice and humanity. Yours faithfully, James Clay.[18]

A week later the newspaper continued the campaign:

The free pardon which it has cost Mr Sidebottom so much time, labour, and money, to obtain … the pardon conferred upon him can be regarded as no boon. It still leaves uncompensated three years of unjust confinement and exile … for which no after honours or rewards can be an adequate atonement. A free pardon, then, is plainly not sufficient to meet the requirements of common justice. Men who have done nothing have small cause to be thankful that they are pardoned for it … with that pardon will be … a letter from Mrs Drewery, in which she expresses her willingness to go out to her husband with her children.[19]

The letters on the subject of the payment for the family’s sea passage continued throughout the years 1848–1850. The British government’s Home Office needed to be persuaded to pay for the family’s passage to Melbourne. Sidebottom wrote on 14 January 1848 to Sir George Grey, Secretary of State, making the observation that,

Her Majesty has … granted a free pardon on the ground of his innocence, the family is, in a state of poverty, is entirely unable to raise the necessary amount … she being totally destitute of money …[20]

Then Sir George Grey, writing from Downing Street, Whitehall on 22 January 1848, to the Lieutenant Governor Sir William Denison:

Sir … I herewith transmit to you in order that the prisoner may receive the benefit thereof without delay, a Free Pardon, which her Majesty has been graciously pleased to grant to Thomas Drewery. I have also to devise that Thomas Drewery may be provided with a free passage to his country by the earliest opportunity.[21]

Thomas Drewery’s Free Pardon signed by Her Majesty Queen Victoria
Thomas Drewery’s Free Pardon signed by Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 6 January 1848. PROV, VPRS 2877/P0 Inward Registered Correspondence I (Land Branch), Unit 6, 1850/370a, letter re. family coming.


Thomas declined the British government’s offer of a free passage back to England. Instead, he asked the government to pay for his family to be sent to Melbourne. On 13 December 1848, he requested the

[British] Government fulfil its promise of a grant of £40 to pay the expense of my wife and children’s passage … as the money raised by my friends at home to assist me was expended in defraying the expenses of my wife and family [coming] out to me.[22]

The newspaper reported Sidebottom had found a shipping agent who had agreed to take Mrs Drewery and the family ‘… in addition to find them … bedding and utensils which other passengers are required to take’.[23]

The Port Phillip and Victoria Pioneers Sources in Victoria with source references, contains an index in which Thomas Drewery’s name appears with a reference to ‘Family Coming’.[24] The index refers to records held by PROV, the Registers of Inward Correspondence of the Superindent of Port Phillip, which then gave me the information needed to identify the Inward Registered Correspondence file where Thomas Drewery’s letters could be found. The letters discussed the subject of paying for the passage of the Drewery family. Reading through the government correspondence revealed a level of confusion on the subject. Who did pay for the passage and who was entitled to be reimbursed? The letters discuss these vexing questions without apparent resolution. Interestingly the government were prepared to offer Thomas a free return passage to England but needed convincing to pay for his family to travel to Melbourne.


Colonial Secretary, letter to the Superintendent of Port Phillip with reference to the payment of £40 to Thomas Drewery
Colonial Secretary, letter to the Superintendent of Port Phillip with reference to the payment of £40 to Thomas Drewery, 27 February 1849. PROV, VPRS 2877/P0 Inward Registered Correspondence I (Land Branch), Unit 6, 1850/370a, letter re. family coming.


Thomas received a letter on 23 February 1849 which stated: ‘Bank of Australasia, Melbourne branch of that bank £40 to the credit of Thomas Drewery.’[25] Within 12 months, however, the government would write again and ask him to refund the £40.

The Colonial Secretary of New South Wales wrote to the Superintendent of the Port Phillip District on 25 January 1850, ‘respecting the recovery of the money paid to Drewery.’[26] On 11 February, Thomas wrote ‘my wife did not receive £40 from Mr Sidebottom’.[27]

The last letter in the correspondence was dated 14 March 1850, when the Colonial Secretary’s Chief Clerk William Elyard, Government House Sydney, wrote to the Superintendent of Port Phillip:

… respecting the recovery from Thomas Drewery of the money paid in the Colony for the passage of his family to Port Phillip … appears to have been before paid in England. I do … enquire whether this money has yet been recovered?[28]

I was unable to find any further correspondence on this matter in the archives, which makes it difficult to conclude whether the dispute was ever resolved. In his letters Thomas maintained that he did not receive any money. This included the public subscription raised through the newspaper and entrusted to Sidebottom to give to Thomas. Sidebottom would have been confident that the government would reimburse him the money he paid to the shipping agent. Unfortunately it is not clear whether Sidebottom was ever reimbursed by the government. Possibly he kept the remaining public subscription money to cover his costs.

In letters to the government Sidebottom stated Drewery never answered my letters, a claim both gentlemen made about each other. It could be understood that contacting Thomas would have been difficult as he changed his place of residence numerous times, however Sidebottom continued to reside in Hull and it would be hard to believe Thomas’s letters would not have reached him.

The last letter on the subject I was able to find at the National Archives of the United Kingdom was dated 21 May 1850. Sir Charles FitzRoy, Government House Sydney, wrote having taken

… receipt of your letter 25 July 1849 I forwarded a copy of it to the Superintendent of Port Phillip, CJ La Trobe, requested he recover the £40 paid to Thomas Drewery from the Military chest.[29]

Under the circumstances FitzRoy concluded he did not consider it proper to endeavour to enforce a repayment pending further instructions.

Thomas left the Melbourne Medical Hall and established his own chemist business. In 1851, Thomas advertised his chemist store had moved from Swanston Street to Elizabeth Street in Melbourne. That same year he was elected to the local council. Thomas served one term as a councillor for the ward of Gipps during the years 1851–1854, and then he retired.

After retiring from council Thomas applied for a publicans licence. The Sydney Morning Herald reported he was granted a licence despite the local objections which alluded ‘… to his position as a City Councillor’.[30] Thomas was the licensee who managed the Drewery Family Hotel in Fitzroy from 14 March 1854 to 24 April 1855.[31]


List of publican’s licences for the City of Melbourne records Benjamin Drewry as the licensee at the Olive Branch Hotel
List of publican’s licences for the City of Melbourne records Benjamin Drewry as the licensee at the Olive Branch Hotel, La Trobe Street and Thomas Drewery as the licensee at Drewery’s Family Hotel, Fitzroy. PROV, VPRS 7601/P1 Licensing Register – Metropolitan, Unit 1, entry no. 48 for the year commencing 1 July 1853.


The Drewery Family Hotel, which still stands on the corner of Gertrude and Napier streets, Fitzroy, was originally built in 1854 by Benjamin Drewry, and belonged to the Drewry family until the 1940s.[32] Benjamin and Thomas had similar surnames and both were born in Yorkshire however no family connection has been established.


Notice to surveyor of intention to build
Notice to surveyor of intention to build. PROV, VPRS 9288/P1 Notices of Intention to Build, Unit 4, 1854/1733 re. letter John Hutchinson builder for Drewery.


Thomas purchased a parcel of land situated ‘between Drewery’s Family hotel and Mrs Fosdykes store’ where he intended to build a billiard room.[33] The notice was lodged with the building surveyor on 25 September 1854.[34] He signed the mortgage on 2 April 1855 for £240. The billiard room was built next to the hotel and auctioned off four months later.[35]

Clearly circumstances had changed for Thomas because he was no longer the licensee by the end of April 1855. By 1856 an advertisement appears for a general hand to contact T Drewery at 129 Swanston Street. This supposes Thomas had returned to work as a chemist.[36] Unfortunately this venture was short lived. By the end of February the stock in trade of a chemist was auctioned under order of the Supreme Court of Victoria.[37]

I was unable to find any records relating to Thomas in the archives for the period between March 1856 and the middle of 1858. However, according to his daughter’s birth certificate the family lived in Charles Street, Collingwood in 1857.

By early 1858 the Drewery family had moved to Dunolly, Victoria. The township of Dunolly had experienced an impressive gold rush, starting in June 1856. What might have changed for Thomas is impossible to know, maybe the stories from the gold fields were too tempting for him to resist. Perhaps he had bad debts and needed to leave Melbourne.

In Dunolly’s main street, Thomas opened a chemist business. The rate record showed he paid rates in 1859.[38] The family had only been in Dunolly for a short time when Thomas died from a heart condition. His death, tragic as it was, would leave the family destitute and homeless. After his death Elizabeth moved the family to nearby Castlemaine where they struggled to survive. When Elizabeth Drewery died in 1864, her children’s future was bleak.

The plight of the Drewery children was unfortunately a common occurrence around the gold fields. The situation was so appalling that the Victorian Government introduced the Neglected and Criminal Children’s Act 1864. Those children sentenced under the Act were placed in Industrial Schools.

Thomas and Elizabeth’s eldest daughter, Ann 23 years old, was left to look after her siblings. Her brother Thomas was blind and lived out his life at the Castlemaine Benevolent Asylum.[39] The only other child old enough to work was Joseph, known as Jury by the locals, he lived out his life in nearby Chewton. Neither gentleman had any family of their own.

Thomas and Elizabeth’s two younger children, Robert and Catherine (or Kate), were sentenced under the Neglected and Criminal Children’s Act 1864.[40] Robert went to the Sunbury Industrial School.[41] He was discharged 31 December 1867. This was the last known whereabouts of Robert I was able to find. The Victorian Wards Register held at PROV had no record for his sister Catherine.[42] I was unable to find any further information about the circumstances of their eldest child Ann.

This personal story highlights the ordeal a miscarriage of justice had upon this family. Despite the hardships they faced the family maintained their dignity. Thomas believed he could do well in Melbourne and wrote to Elizabeth ‘… here I am respected’.[43] Once settled in Port Phillip, they seemed to enjoy the freedom of a tolerant society.

The documents do not answer all the questions about the Drewery family. However those letters and newspaper articles which have survived do reveal their fight for justice and their long battle for recompense. Its reward was a father reunited with his family.



[1] John Webster’s letter 10 June 1847, Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[2] Monday 4 August 1845 at 1.30 pm, Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[3] September Quarter Sessions, 10 September 1845, Chairman’s notes, Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[4] ‘Thomas Drewery’s Case’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 10 December 1847, p. 8.

[5] K Clarke, Convicts of the Port Phillip District, Exiles to Port Phillip Arrived at Pentonville gaol 18 October 1845 and reported in ‘Convict’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 10 October 1845, p. 7.

[6] Marten A Syme, Shipping arrivals and departures, Victorian ports, Roebuck Book, Melbourne, 1984. For consistency the article has used the same spelling for the ship Joseph Soame as was used in this book.

[7] ‘Thomas Drewery’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 14 April 1848, p. 5.

[8] ‘Thomas Drewery, The Innocent Convict’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 14 January 1848, p. 5.

[9] John Webster tried at Surrey (Newington) on 1 December 1845, sentenced ten years transportation to Van Diemans Land, available at <>, accessed 3 July 2015.

[10] ‘Thomas Drewery’s Case’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times10 December 1847, p. 8.

[11] Sir George Grey, Secretary of State, Home Department, House of Commons speech December 1847, House of Commons Debate, 20 December 1847, Vol. 95, cc1436-7.

[12] Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[13] ‘Thomas Drewery’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 14 April 1848, p. 5.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] House of Commons Debate, 20 December 1847, Vol. 95 cc1436-7. On 16 December 1847, Mr Ewart wrote to Secretary of State Sir George Grey on the correctness of the newspaper report on Thomas Drewery, Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[17] ‘Parliamentary Intelligence’, The Times, 21 December 1847, p. 2.

[18] ‘Thomas Drewery, The Innocent Convict’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 14 January 1848, p. 5. James Clay MP for Hull 1847–1873, entry in Sidney Lee (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, Index and Epitome, Smith, Elder, & Co, London, 1903, available at <>, accessed 3 July 2015.

[19] ‘Thomas Drewery’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, Friday, 21 January 1848, p. 4.

[20] PROV, VPRS 2877/P0 Inward Registered Correspondence I (Land Branch), Unit 6, 1850/370, re. letter family coming.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] ‘Thomas Drewery’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 26 May 1848, p. 5.

[24] Ada Ackerly (compiler), Port Phillip and Victoria Pioneers Sources in Victoria with source references, unpublished, 1988. PROV, VPRS 47/P3 Registers of Inward Correspondence I (Land Branch), 1850/147a and PROV, VPRS 2877/P0, Inward Registered Correspondence I (Land Branch), Unit 6, 1850/370a, letter re. family coming.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Charles La Trobe Superintendent of Port Phillip 1839-1851 and Lieutenant-Governor 1851-1854, Australian Dictionary of Biography, available at <>, accessed 3 July 2015. Criminal Petition, HO 18/168, National Archives of the UK.

[30] ‘Victoria’, Sydney Morning Herald, 31 May 1854, p. 4, available at <>, accessed 3 July 2015.

[31] State Library of Victoria, Cole-Tetlow papers, ‘Hotel’, Volume 4, p. 118.

[32] Private papers held by author Dorothy Small.

[33] Land Victoria Memorial Library, Cherry Lane Laverton; Book 24, Folio 954.

[34] PROV, VPRS 9288/P4 Notices of Intention to Build, Unit 4, 1854/1733, re. letter John Hutchinson builder for Drewery.

[35] Land Victoria Memorial Library, Cherry Lane Laverton; Book 24, Folio 954.

[36] Advertising, Argus, 31 January 1856, p. 1, available at <>, accessed 30 April 2014.

[37] Advertising, Age, 20 February 1856, p. 4, available at <>, accessed 16 November 2014.

[38] This information was conveyed to me through personal email communication dated 26 May 2013 from John Tully, Dunolly Historical Society, based on research into the society’s own collection of Dunolly rate records.

[39] ‘After Fifty Years’, 23 September 1914, Mount. Alexander Mail, p. 1, available at <>, accessed 11 March 2014.

[40] ‘Items of News’, Mount Alexander Mail, 6 July 1864, p. 2.

[41] PROV, VPRS 4527/P2 Ward Registers (known as Children’s Registers 1864 – 1887), Vol. 1, p. 311.

[42] Ibid.

[43] ‘Thomas Drewery’, Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 14 April 1848, p. 5.

Material in the Public Record Office Victoria archival collection contains words and descriptions that reflect attitudes and government policies at different times which may be insensitive and upsetting

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples should be aware the collection and website may contain images, voices and names of deceased persons.

PROV provides advice to researchers wishing to access, publish or re-use records about Aboriginal Peoples