Lawrence Ormond Butler (1812-1856)- The adventurous life of the son of an Irish convict in NSW: Lawrence Ormond Butler- Ch. 3: Years 1839-1844 in Melbourne

Elizabeth Street Melbourne in 1844

by Alfred Martin Ebsworth in 1888

(State Library of Victoria Accession no. A/S06/09/88/133; Image No. mp10130)

Lawrence Ormond Butler's Second Marriage and re-location to Melbourne

Shortly after his release from prison at Liverpool, Lawrence Ormond Butler relocated to the newly developing settlement of Melbourne. The recently widowed Lawrence then married Agnes MacPherson in Melbourne 31 December 1839 in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Melbourne. Agnes later described herself in a job application as the 'widow of a Scottish clergyman'. However, another website[i] has Agnes MacPherson as the only daughter of Captain John MacPherson of the 76^th Regiment of Foot. Miss Agnes MacPherson arrived as a cabin passenger on the ‘Caledonia’ from Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland on 18 September 1839. It left Leith on 17 April via Bahia 25 June 1839. She was described as ‘Miss’ Agnes MacPherson on the list,[ii] but this may be explained by the tradition that Scottish women retained their maiden names.

Lawrence moved to Melbourne in 1839 before his brother Walter Butler, who went to Melbourne before March 1841.

In the Port Phillip Directory for 1841, Lawrence is listed as a compositor in Bourke Street Melbourne, and a Mrs Butler is listed at a boarding house in Bourke Street (which is probably the house they leased for use as a public house, as described below).

Notably, by the 1840's, records and newspapers relating to Lawrence Butler always named him as Lawrence Ormond Butler. This distinguishes him from another Lawrence Butler transported to Tasmania in December 1840 on the 'Egyptian 2'- tried in Tipperary for theft of wool and sentenced to 7 years, pardoned in 1844. When charged, he was a married man aged 50 years with four children. A third man by the name of Laurence Butter (sometimes Butler) arrived in Tasmania on the 'Nile' in 1850, aged 31, tried for theft in Edinburgh, a painter, who married in 1853 and died in 1872 in Hobart.

1841 was an eventful year for Lawrence Ormond Butler. The following information was found in “The Port Philip Patriot” newspaper:

Application for publican’s license in Melbourne

On April 22, 1841, Lawrence Butler’s application for a publican’s license for the ‘Irish Harp’ was denied, with the qualification “until the present tenant leaves”.

On May 24, 1841, a special meeting of the Justices was held at the Police-office, on behalf of Mr L.O. Butler who had applied for the license for the 'Irish Harp' presently in the occupation of Mr Heany, whose application was refused last licensing day. Butler's lawyer said his client had taken the house, purposely for a public-house, for two years, at a very high rent. However, the Justices stated they had been determined at the General Licensing Meeting not to grant any fresh licenses during the year and they were not going to establish a rule one month and break it the next. The application was refused.

This 'house' he was renting was probably the 'boarding house' in Bourke Street that 'Mrs Butler' was residing at in the 1841 Port Phillip Directory.

Melbourne 1839

However, this ruling by the Justices did not seem to apply to everyone. On the 3^rd May 1841, Lawrence’s brother, Walter Butler was granted the licence for the “Ship Inn” at Williamstown. In the “Patriot” newspaper Walter’s marriage to Frances Edwards on the 22^nd October was announced, and described “Walter Butler, Esq. of Williamstown”.

Public Dispute between the newspaper employers of Lawrence Ormond Butler

Lawrence was then embroiled in a very public dispute involving himself and his past and present employers, both newspaper editors/newspaper proprietors. Sometime, before June 1841, Laurence had been employed for a short while in a temporary position, as the overseer of the printing department for William Kerr the editor of the “Port Philip Patriot”, proprietor John Pascoe Fawkner. Lawrence left his employ sometime before June and was employed by rival newspaper editor George Cavanagh at the “The Port Phillip Herald”. (Cavanagh having previously been employed at the “Sydney Gazette”, during the time of Lawrence Butler’s controversial employment there, and was editor in 1836-1839. [iii])

Lawrence was accused of divulging information about his previous employment to his new employer, Cavanagh, who promptly published the information signed by Butler, in an editorial in his newspaper, resulting in the wrath of John Fawkner, proprietor of the “Port Phillip Patriot”, and William Kerr, editor. Fawkner is recognised as the father of Melbourne, having founded a settlement there in 1835 (along with John Batman).

Notably, Kerr had been employed by Cavanagh as editor of his newspaper, the “Port Phillip Herald” the previous year. Kerr had ‘left’ his employ and started with the “Patriot” in January 1841.

George Cavanagh had previously been appointed editor of the “Sydney Gazette” in 1836. The following year, 1837, Kerr emigrated to Sydney from England (Kerr b.1812 d. 1859). After initially working for the “Colonist”, he joined the “Sydney Gazette”, probably personally employed by Cavanagh. In 1839, Cavanagh took his family, staff and machinery to Melbourne and on 3 January 1840 published the first issue of the 'Port Phillip Herald'. He must have taken Kerr with him, as Kerr also went to Melbourne in 1839 and was employed by Cavanagh.

They must have had some issues, as Kerr only remained with Cavanagh for about one year, before taking employment as editor of rival newspaper, the 'Port Phillip Patriot'. A bitter feud then erupted between the two rival newspaper editors.

In 1844 Kerr and Fawkner quarrelled, yet Kerr continued as Editor and changed the policy of the “Patriot”.

“Superintendant Charles La Trobe stated that it dealt systematically ‘in abuse and gross misrepresentations of persons and facts.’. Kerr even used his editorials to vilify its proprietor Fawkner, who was driven to reply in the columns of the hated “Herald”. Soon afterwards Kerr left the “Patriot” and in 1849 started his own “Argus”. He became insolvent and sold the “Argus” but continued as Editor. The paper was renowned as ‘extremely radical’. He became one of the first four aldermen and Melbourne’s second town clerk.

Kerr was a man of many violent enthusiasms and abounding energy. His language was unrestrained and during his 20 years in Port Phillip he quarrelled with most of the leading citizens. He was given to stinging and sarcastic personal abuse of his opponents.” (ref-ADB- Kerr)

William Kerr

(State Library of Victoria Accession no H92.330/181; Call no PCV LTGN 7

John Pascoe Fawkner (1792-1867)

by William Strutt (Courtesy NLA n/a.pic.an.2268302)

The character of this man, Kerr, puts the following events into context, and

the following newspaper articles in the 'Port Phillip Patriot' give an idea of the strength of Kerr’s wrath:

Mon June 14, 1841- Kerr begins by attacking the character of Cavanagh;

“To Mr George Cavenagh
Sir- You have come amongst the Melbournians professedly to reform the Press- at least so the paper you PROFESS to Edit very pompously asserted. Now I beg to ask how have you redeemed this vain-glorious boast?
You are the only Melbourne Printer that has been warned to appear before the Supreme Court for the libel on private character… You have disgusted the whole of the reasonable and thinking portion of this community, by the virulent attacks of yourself and coadjutor upon private character- attacks made with no public object in view, but merely to gratify your malignant passions. Now “Reformer of the Press of Melbourne” I have to ask you, what complaint could you make? With what reason could you appeal to the public, should any, or all of your workmen, for private ends, to injure you, or to benefit any other newspaper proprietor, divulge the private secrets, or important intelligence which you entrust him to set up-- in the face of your tampering with my late servant LAWRENCE ORMOND BUTLER (NB- written in capital letters in the newspaper), (I give the name to the world for information) to obtain a knowledge of the affairs of my office; and mind, I pledge my word that he has given you false! Utterly false! Information. Yes! And you have persuaded the mean wretch to append his name, and have given circulation to his certain damnation among the printers wherever your widely circulating paper may happen to go-- thus sealing your own fame with his. (NB they divulged the circulation figures of the ‘Patriot’.)

Now Sir, you will have achieved a great victory, no doubt, that is to say, if you have perfectly succeeded in releasing the whole body of printers from their responsibilities, if, though you and your associate-- worthy Lawrence Ormond Butler, you have removed the bond of secrecy by which every person in a printing office has hitherto been restrained, and have shown them that printers may publish to the world whatever may have been entrusted to them under the impression that the secrets of the trade are sacred. If you have accomplished this noble feat, I hope you may live many years as a printer, to enjoy the fruits of your own deserts.”
I am, Sir
JOHN P. FAWKNER
PS- I challenge you and your associate to come forward and prove ON OATH, the circulation of the Patriot, but I advise you to be cautious for I shall not hesitate to bring you up for wilful and corrupt perjury, if you should have the fool-hardiness to reiterate your statement on oath.

The vitriol continued:

George Cavanagh, Esquire, the editor, printer, publisher, and by some unintelligible means, sole proprietor of the Port Phillip Herald, has put the copestone to his reputation as a gentleman and as an honest tradesman in his paper of Friday last, by the publication of a letter from one of our cast-off servants (a scoundrel named Laurence Ormond Butler), who it seems has been pandering to the baseness of its present employer by attempting to betray secrets of the office he has just left. Fortunately for us he had it not in his power to do more than attempt, for knowing the character of the man from his previous doings in Sydney and at Hobart Town, when we unwillingly received him into the office for a few weeks, as a substitute for our overseer who had been obliged to proceed temporarily to South Australia, we did not admit him so far to our confidence as to entrust him with the issue of the paper, or the control of the press-room, and it was consequently not in his power to do more than guess at our circulation…. The circulation of the “Patriot”, at the time it came under our charge was low- lower even than honest Larry has guessed at…

We are not yet done with George Cavanagh Esq. and his infamous tool Laurence Ormond Butler. We have now been a good many years connected with the press, and to the credit of the printers we must

state that, excepting in the case of a convict compositor in the “Sydney Herald Office”, who betrayed his employers by purloining a proof of an unpublished libel and handing it over to the party libelled, we never knew a printer guilty of such cool, deliberate treachery as this of Laurence Ormond Butler. Drunken, dissolute, improvident beings, as but too many of them are, we never knew another instance of a printer voluntarily disclosing to a rival establishment the secrets of an office with which he was connected, and we feel perfectly satisfied that the trade will note such a dereliction from honourable principle, by expulsion from their society. Paltry and disreputable however, as every employer of labour will consider Butler’s conduct, it does not match in downright blackguardism the conduct of Mr George Cavanagh… We have no very high opinion of the self-styled aristocracy of Melbourne, but as Mr Cavanagh is an aristocrat of the first water, we shall look to their reception of him after such dishonourable behaviour, as a sure test by which to estimate their own pretensions to respectability, for we have no hesitation in saying that no one who has any claim to the character of a gentleman would suffer a man who has been guilty of the odious crime of tampering with the honesty of another man’s servant to enter his society.”

Thurs June 17: “Laurence Ormond Butler, a Compositor, late of this office, having obviously with a view of injuring his late employer, communicated to the proprietor of the ‘Herald’ what he believed to be the circulation of the ‘Patriot’, the Editor of the ‘Patriot’ will feel obliged if the Compositors and Pressmen employed in the Patriot office will favour him with their opinion, in time for tomorrow’s ‘Patriot’ on the following queries, viz: whether, according to the usage of the trade, Butler has, in this matter, been guilty of “a breach of Confidence?” and whether it is proper for any Compositor or Pressman to mention the circulation of any newspaper with which he may be, or has been, at any time connected, if not cautioned by his employer to the contrary, such information being given expressly to be used to the prejudice of the proprietor of such newspaper?’

He received the following responses:

The Printers of this establishment, that although Printers are not bound to secrecy more than prudence may dictate, yet, that it is a gross breach of confidence, and in the highest degree improper for any printer to make public any information which he may have obtained while in the service of his employer, and that in the case of Butler, the offence is aggravated by his having held the confidential situation of Overseer in the Patriot offices…

The Compositors and Pressmen replied: That on their minds there is not the shadow of a doubt but that he, Butler, has been guilty of a flagrant breach of confidence—not so much, in their opinion, in answering the question when first put to him by Mr Cavanagh, for he might then have been thrown off his guard, as in his published statement, which they esteem unparalleled and unpardonable offence against his late employer.

Cavanagh then replied in his newspaper, The Port Phillip Herald:

“publicly avowing that he maintained he was guilty of no offence and Butler was blameless in disclosing what he supposed he knew, because his late employer had never warned him not to do him an injury”.

Kerr, in response, said:

“Our honest contemporary goes even farther than this, for he attempts to justify the treachery of a man who makes use of the knowledge acquired in a particular service to the injury of his employer. It would be a waste of words to comment on such a defence. Although aware that amongst honest men, there could be no second opinion as to Cavanagh’s baseness and Butler’s turpitude, we were yet desirous to have the opinion of the Printers in each of the newspaper offices, as to the light in which such a departure from the principles of rectitude was viewed by the trade.”

Kerr then issued a challenge to Mr Cavanagh that two gentlemen, mutually chosen as scrutineers, shall inspect the books of both newspapers to obtain accurate information on the circulation. He repeated this in several issues, to no avail.

On Mon July 12, Kerr reprinted an article from the “Herald” which also called for both papers to submit their circulation figures, using Kerr’s own words from his previous challenges.

Kerr, finishes by saying:

“there, gentle reader, there, considering the quarter it comes from, is a notable flight of fancy for you. Alas for the cause of truth, honesty and honour!!!—Think of that Larry Butler.”

On Monday 16 July, Kerr wrote scathingly about Cavanagh:

“Our notable contemporary the ‘Herald’, strongly resembles the dunghill cock- when he has the field to himself, he crows and claps his wings, but hides his diminished head whenever there is a risk of coming into contact with a bird of better breeding. This is just the Herald’s position now; when challenged to enter the field in right earnest, the faint- hearted craven was deaf to the voice of the charmer- but the danger is no soon over than he perches on the summit of his own dunghill, and crows as crousely, and claps his wings as bravely, as if all the world did not know he had shewn the white feather. He crows, however, in vain, for till he thinks fit to submit to the ordeal to which for weeks back he has been challenged, he cannot expect that any notice will be taken of his bravadoes.”

John Fawkner's Printing Office- The 'Port Phillip Patriot'

Source: Museum Victoria-

http://museumvictoria.com.aau/discoverycentre/Infosheets/The-Melbourne-Story/John-Pascoe-Fawkner-and-his-press

Lawrence Butler's assault conviction and gaol sentence

Sometime during the next month Lawrence Butler ended up behind bars for an assault on a court bailiff:

Thurs August 19, 1841- an article in the “Port Phillip Patriot” entitled:

“Inaccurate reporting-

What with blunders of intention, unwitting blunders, and blunders of every shape and description, we shall not feel very much surprised if one day or other our friend of the ‘Herald’ blunders himself into the body of Her Majesty’s jail, where his friend Larry Butler is employed “nappin stones”.” (ie.- breaking up rocks with a sledgehammer).

The Port Phillip Patriot, 31 July 1841, first reported details of the assault:

Port Phillip Patriot, Sat August 21, 1841 p4:

Mon August 23:

“It will be seen from the Supreme Court report in another column that Mr Cavanagh has narrowly escaped “getting into trouble”, (as his friend Larry would call it,) on account of his misrepresentation of the Judge’s remarks in reference to the difficulties the Crown Prosecutor labours under from the irregular manner in which the depositions and recognizances are frequently furnished from the Police Courts.”

Lawrence was released from jail in September:

Thurs 16 September: “The court then adjourned for one hour. On his Honour resuming his seat, addressing the crown prosecutor, he observed, that he had received a petition praying a remission of sentence, from the wife of Lawrence Ormond Butler who was convicted last sessions for an assault on the bailiff of another court, and he had, under all the circumstances of the case and learning the good character of Butler’s wife, and her present destitute condition, owing to her husband’s imprisonment, recommended a commutation of the prisoner’s sentence.”
The Port Phillip Gazette 18 Sept 1841 reported:

This shortened jail sentence indicates that the assault on the bailiff had not been considered to be of a serious nature, and probably occurred, once again, in a flare-up of Lawrence’s now notorious temper.

Lawrence had written a Petition for a remittance of his sentence [iv]:

27 Sept 1841

Petition from L.O. Butler for remission of Sentence:

Melbourne 22^nd Sept 1841

The Honourable

The Colonial Secretary

Sydney

Sir,

I have the honor to enclose a Memorial from the party named in the margin (ie. Lawrence Ormond Butler) to His Honor the Resident Judge.

The Petitioner was convicted of an assault at the Supreme Court of this District in the 16^th of August, and sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labour.

The Petitioner having been in prison one month sets forth his claim for remittance of the remainder of the sentence. The Petitioner will be found to be backed by the Roman Catholic clergyman and others, and in addition to bear the recommendation of His Honor Mr Justice Willes and the Crown Prosecutor.

Under these circumstances I considered that His Excellency would not be indisposed to grant the remission prayed for and have ventured to ____ authority to give an order for the discharge of Butler.

I have the honor to be for Your most obedient Servant.

______ signature (C.L. Lascock?)

To John Walpole Willes, Resident Judge of Port Phillip and it’s dependencies &c, &c, &c.

The Respectful Petition of Lawrence Ormond Butler humbly shewith.

That your Petitioner fully convinced of your Honor’s merciful disposition ventures this to solicit his interference in his behalf.

Conscious as he is of having transgressed the laws and that the sentence under which he at present suffers has been justly merited, he still entertains the hope that your Honor will be Kindly pleased to take into consideration that your Petitioner has a wife entirely depending upon him for that support which by his act he is unable to afford the hardships of imprisonment which he endures would be patiently borne, and the lesson which they teach he trusts will produce that moral reformation which is the object of all punishment, but when he reflects upon the privations to which an innocent and unprotected wife suffers for his errors, and that she is not only friendless but penniless, he fervently prays your Honor’s compassion to remit the remaining part of his sentence, and relies with a firm confidence upon his present _____ that he will be duly grateful for the merciful Act and never again so far commit himself as to bring ruin upon an innocent dependant and disgrace upon himself.

Hoping that the Liberty taken will be excused as the result of absolute necessity and for the purpose of rescuing a helpless wife from starvation and extreme mental torture, your Petitioner leaves his fate in your hand and should you deem the granting of his request as not interfering with the course of justice or calculated to form a precedent for future applications of a similar nature, your respectful suppliant will, as in duty bound, ever pray for peace and prosperity to smile upon you and that Heaven may bless your family with that happiness of which a hasty act has deprived.

Your Humble and Respectful Servant

Lawrence Ormond Butler

Melbourne Jail

23^rd Sept 1841.

We the undersigned respectfully beg to recommend the prayer of the foregoing Memorial to Your Honor’s humane consideration.

I beg most earnestly to commend this Petitioner to the charitable consideration of His Honor, Judge Willes, especially for the sake of the Petitioner’s wife who is a most exemplary woman.

Signed

P.B. Geoghegan_____ (R.C. Priest, Melbourne, born 1805 Dublin; sent to establish the first Catholic mission in Melbourne and laid foundation stone for St Francis’s Church in Oct 1841)

R.C. ___ PM Phillips

Thomas Clark(?)

Geo Cavanagh (Lawrence’s employer at the “Herald”)

Taking into con___ with regard to _____ of Requests which have come to my knowledge and the contrition expressed by the Prisoner, I think I may safely recommend a remittance of the remainder of the Petitioner’s Sentence- the Crown Prosecutor concurs in this recommendation.

John Walpole Willes

Resident Judge

Sept 15 1841

James Cro_____

Crown Prosecutor

If his Honor the Resident Judge considers the case one in which indulgence can with propriety be shewn, it will give me great pleasure to do what lies in my power to forward his Honor’s views.

15 Sept 1841

C.I. Lascock (?)”

Noted: Let the remainder of the sentence be remitted

Signed G.S Sept 28-

No further mention of the dispute between the rival newspapers occurred. Notably, in one of the above articles, Kerr states that 'Knowing the character of the man (viz. Lawrence) from his previous doings in Sydney and at Hobart Town', etc. This obviously refers to Lawrence Butler's frequent brushes with the law and short stints in prison in consequence of his 'absconding' behaviour with several previous employers, in 1828, 1830, 1832, 1835, 1836, and 1837 followed by a stint in Liverpool Gaol in 1838. The earliest record found of Lawrence being in Hobart Town was in 1832 after he absconded as an apprentice to Arthur Hill at the 'Sydney Monitor', and found to be employed by Henry Melville the proprietor of 'The Colonial Times' in Hobart. Three years later he may have been in Hobart, after he had absconded from his employment from the 'Sydney Gazette'. We also know he was in Hobart early in 1836, returning by mid-year, and between February and April in 1837, as previously outlined. Whether Lawrence worked in Hobart for his brother-in-law's newspaper 'The Colonial Times' during these later periods is unknown.

By this time Lawrence Butler's controversial reputation was becoming well established throughout the colony. Even so he must have been very efficient at his job to still gain employment.

Shortly after his release from jail, it would appear that Lawrence had decided to try his luck in the young settlement of South Australia (first settled in 1836). Once again, he tried his luck with a publican's licence, but by June 1842 his licence had expired.
The South Australian newspaper Friday 10 June 1842 p2 advert:

The South Australian, Friday 1 July 1842:

The Southern Australian (Adelaide) Fri 11 March 1842 p3, reported:
SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS, SYDNEY, Wed March 9, 1842
"Elisha Cooper was then put to the bar on the charge of burglariously entering the house of John Reynell of Reynella Farm and carrying away property in January last, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr Reynell of Reynella Farm on the Onkaparinga Road (now the town of Reynella a few kms south of Adelaide, South Australia), described the circumstances attending the robbery, the principal feature of which was, that the property was abstracted during the night without at all disturbing the family.
Lawrence Ormond Butler identified the prisoner as a person who had offered him a gold watch on the Friday before he was apprehended. Prisoner and another person came and stopped all night at the witness's house, and, on the following day, the other man left, but the prisoner stopped the whole day. Witness' description of the watch answered to that given by Mr Reynell as abstracted from his house. Prisoner offered the watch for £3, and witness told him he thought he could not have come honestly by it to offer it for that money. Prisoner said that it had been on "the cross", but that it was all right now, for he had brought it from Van Diemen's Land. After the testimony of other witnesses, His Honor summed up and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was again out to the bar on the charge of forging and uttering sundry Bank of Adelaide cheques or orders with intent to defraud. This time the prisoner was found guilty."

The article states this court sitting took place in Sydney, but does not indicate the location of Lawrence Butler's premises ('witness's house') or where the defendant had offered him the watch in question. The robbery took place on a farm on the Onkarparinka Road near Adelaide, which may have been near the location of Lawrence's 'Kensington Arms' hotel. It is not clear why the case was held in Sydney.

No more is heard of Lawrence until 1845 in Sydney.

[i] http://ship47.site88.net/b/b39.html

[ii] http://ship47.site88.net/b/b39.html The 76^th Regiment of Foot, a Scottish Regiment, was sent to India in the 1830’s

[iii] Marjorie J. Tipping, Cavanagh George 1808-1869, Aust. Dict. Of Biog, Vol 5, MUP, 1974 pp335-336; Hugh Anderson, Fawkner, John Pascoe (1792-1869), ADB, Vol 1, MUP, 1966, pp368-370; Lyndsay Gardner, Kerr, William (1812-1859), ADB, Vol 2, MUP, 1967, pp50-51; Michael Persse, Wentworth, William Charles (1790-1872), ADB,Vol 2, MUP, 1967, pp582-589

[iv] Colonial Secretary’s Correspondence Index to Convicts & Others 1838-1842- extracted by Joan Reese

Primary Source SR NSW: Letter No 41/8666 Shelf 4/2548; Lawrence Ormond Butler -SHIP/ID- Melbourne Gaol

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Lawrence Ormond Butler- Ch. 3: Years 1839-1844 in Melbourne