Article V - The Brickmaker Who Wouldn’t Lie

 This post is part of the Blogging from A to Z Challenge (#AtoZChallenge), where I’m exploring historical newspaper clippings—one story at a time—through my series “Behind the Newsprint.”

The Clipping

“She asked me, while walking across the paddock one day, whether she would get into trouble about the bill of sale effected over the furniture. I told her I thought she would, because Vivash was determined to tell the whole truth to the creditors.”[1]

That single sentence, buried in a witness statement from a perjury trial in 1873, stopped me. It wasn’t about a famous judge or a dramatic verdict. It was a brickmaker, Thomas Crump, recalling a quiet conversation in a paddock. And that brickmaker happens to be my third‑great‑grandfather.

He appeared across four newspaper articles reporting on a tangled mess of insolvency, sham bills of sale, and a charge of perjury against an old man named John Vivash. Crump was never the headline. But if you read carefully, and read across the articles, he becomes the most honest person in the room.

What It Suggests

At first glance, the clippings tell a simple story:

• Thomas Crump was a brickmaker working at a brickyard in Hawthorn, Melbourne.[1]
• He was owed £14 for his labour – a debt that appears again and again.[2]
• He knew that a bill of sale over Vivash’s furniture was a sham, arranged to cheat a creditor named Youlden.[1]
• He was threatened by a man called Melville to keep quiet.[1]
• At the Supreme Court trial, he finally told the whole truth, and the old man was acquitted.[4]

But that’s just the surface. When you look closer, across four articles from April and May 1873, a much richer, more human picture emerges. A picture of a working man caught between powerful people, threatened into silence, and yet ultimately willing to speak.

Looking Closer

The four articles are not one story but four legal proceedings involving the same cast: John Vivash (insolvent brickmaker), Rachel Brooks (later Mrs Hawkins), Ninian Melville (master brickmaker and accuser), and a shoemaker named Thompson. Thomas Crump appears as a witness in the later hearings. But what he says - and what he doesn’t say - changes dramatically.

I built a timeline from the clippings:

• April 1873 – Good Templars’ Lodge arbitration: Lodge ordered payment, never paid. (The Argus, 19 April 1873, p. 7)
• 18 April 1873 – Insolvent Court: Crump does not testify; £14 debt mentioned. (The Argus, 19 April 1873, p. 7 [2])
• Late April – 2 May 1873 – City Police Court: Crump withholds evidence, says only “no conversation except with Thompson.” (The Herald, 20 May 1873, p. 1 [3])
• 20–21 May 1873 – Supreme Court trial: Crump tells all – paddock conversation, Thompson’s confession, “waggon in the mire,” and Melville’s threat. (The Herald, 20 May 1873 p. 1 [1] & 21 May 1873 p. 3 [4])

The gap between the Police Court and the Supreme Court is the most telling. Under cross‑examination at the trial, Crump admitted:

“I said, in the police court, that I had no conversation, except with Thompson, over the bill of sale. The conversation with Rachel Brooks came to my memory afterwards. Melville threatened me if I remembered anything beyond what I said in the police court.”[1]

The threat had worked, temporarily. But at the Supreme Court, Crump broke free of it. He described Rachel Brooks walking with him across the paddock, asking whether she would “get into trouble.” [1]

He repeated Thompson’s admission that the bill of sale was a sham, and that Thompson had turned his back and said “God save the Queen.” And he told the jury about Melville’s warning: “If Vivash went on that way he would get them all into gaol.” 

Then Melville’s memorable metaphor: “He has got his waggon in the mire, and we are going to take off the wheels to prevent the creditors from taking it away.[1]”

The defence barrister, Mr. Molesworth, held Crump up as a man of “unblemished character” – unlike the “tainted” prosecution witnesses (Melville, Thompson, and Rachel Brooks herself).[4] The jury agreed. Vivash was found not guilty, and applause broke out in the courtroom.[4]

What Lies Behind It

So who was Thomas Crump, really?

He was a brickmaker, a skilled manual worker in colonial Melbourne. His workplace, Vivash’s brickyard at Hawthorn, was not a factory but a landscape: paddocks, kilns, a tramroad, and mountains of unburnt bricks (89,000 of them, according to one article).[2] He walked across that paddock with a woman who was about to commit fraud. He talked privately with a shoemaker who confessed the whole scheme.

He was owed £14 – a significant debt for a labourer in 1873 (roughly equivalent to several weeks’ or months’ wages). That debt drove everything. It was why the Good Templars’ Lodge arbitrated.[2] It was why Rachel Brooks promised payment during a seizure.[2] It was why Crump’s testimony mattered.

And he was threatened. Melville, a “master brickmaker” and a man with a dark reputation (the articles mention suspicions that he tried to poison his own wife and mother‑in‑law),[2][4] told Crump to forget anything beyond what he had already said. For a time, Crump obeyed.

What the original newspaper articles did not explicitly state – though one later report noted him only as “a relative of Mrs. Hawkins” – is that Melville was married to Mary Ann Brooks, another daughter of the Brooks family, making him Rachel’s brother‑in‑law.[5] The sham bill of sale was not a business deal between acquaintances; it was a family conspiracy to defraud an outsider (a creditor named Youlden) and then to silence Vivash. Thomas Crump, a hired brickmaker, found himself standing alone against a tight‑knit family network that included Rachel, her sister Elizabeth (Mrs. Perry), her brother‑in‑law Walter Perry, and Melville himself. No wonder he felt the pressure.

But in the end, he told the truth. He stood up in the Supreme Court, named the threat, and gave the evidence that helped acquit an old, weak‑minded man who had been pushed into a corner.

Reflection

This began as a search for a name. Thomas Crump appeared as a witness in another man’s insolvency case. I almost missed the importance of what lay hidden in the articles – what they revealed about his life: the size of his workplace, its decay, the pressure he was under from a family that sought to take over the brickyard and silence him.

Newspapers are tricky sources. They love sensation – perjury, poison, shams, and “God save the Queen” moments. They rarely care about ordinary working people. Thomas Crump only appears in these columns because a richer, more powerful man (Melville) brought a criminal charge, and a poorer, older man (Vivash) needed a defence.

Yet the very machinery of the law – the subpoenas, the cross‑examination, the sworn testimony – dragged Crump into the light. Without the perjury trial, he would be invisible. A single line – “walking across the paddock one day” – is all we have of his daily life. But that line is gold.

Reading across multiple articles, rather than one, made all the difference. One article gave me Crump the silent witness. Four articles gave me Crump the threatened man, the truth‑teller, the brickmaker with a face and a voice.

As a descendant, I find something deeply moving in that. My third‑great‑grandfather wasn’t a hero in the usual sense. He didn’t chase criminals or make speeches. He was a brickmaker who wanted his wages. But when it mattered, he refused to lie. The newspapers called him “disinterested” – meaning he had no personal stake in the outcome.[1] I think he had every stake: his livelihood, his safety, and his name. He chose honesty.

So this “Behind the Newsprint” entry is not about a headline. It’s about the man in the margins, my third‑great‑grandfather, who walked across a paddock, was threatened, and told the truth anyway.

Further reads:

For those interested in learning more about the people referred to in this article, see the following WikiTree profiles

·         Thomas Crump,

The Brooks Family Network

·         Ann Brooks, (Mrs Brooks) (mother – first name from external records, not stated in trial)

·         Mary Ann Brooks (daughter of Ann) who was married to Ninian Melville (master brickmaker, brought perjury charge against John Vivash[unrelated to the family])

·         Rachel Brooks (daughter of Ann) who married Thomas Henry Hawkins (by 1873)

·         Elizabeth Brooks, (Mrs. Perry) (daughter of Ann) who was married to Walter Perry

 

Annotated Sources

[1] The Herald (Melbourne), 20 May 1873, p. 1. “Trial of John Vivash for Perjury.” (Thomas Crump’s testimony, including paddock conversation, Thompson’s confession, “waggon in the mire,” and Melville’s threat.)

[2] The Argus (Melbourne), 19 April 1873, p. 7. “Law Report. Insolvent Court.” (Crump’s £14 debt, Good Templars’ arbitration, seizure, and 89,000 bricks.)

[3] The Argus (Melbourne), 3 May 1873, p. 6. “Charge of Perjury.” (Police Court committal, Wisewould switching sides, bail of £25.)

[4] The Herald (Melbourne), 21 May 1873, p. 3. “Perjury Extraordinary.” (Verdict of not guilty, applause, Molesworth’s speech calling Crump “unblemished” and prosecution witnesses “tainted.”)

[5] The Argus (Melbourne) 22 May 1873 p.7 “Melbourne Criminal Sessions” (Identifies N. Melville as “a relative of Mrs. Hawkins”)

Article E - The Tent, the Toddlers, and the Thief

This post is part of the Blogging from A to Z Challenge (#AtoZChallenge), where I’m exploring historical newspaper clippings—one story at a time—through my series “Behind the Newsprint.”

The Clipping

“Daniel Hurley pleaded not guilty to an indictment which charged him with stealing £50, in money, the property of Thomas Crump, and Charles Randall was charged with receiving the money, knowing it to be stolen. Selina Crump stated that she lived at Brown’s Diggings… Hurley came into her husband’s tent, and called for a bottle of ale. She sent for the ale, and Hurley asked her to have a glass of ale. The prisoner sat down beside her… whilst with one hand he fondled the child of witness, with the other he felt her dress. She missed her money immediately after the prisoner left the tent.”

I was intrigued: was the couple mentioned in the clipping my third great-grandparents, or another couple with the same names? Until now the family story has placed them firmly in and around Melbourne. There has been no suggestion that they ever went to the goldfields. If this report refers to them, it would fundamentally change that picture.

What It Suggests

At first glance, this is a gritty tale of Victorian-era crime. It depicts a family living in a tent on the goldfields, a mother distracted by her children, and a bold thief taking advantage of a “tipsy” social call. It also hints at a moral grey area: the defence attorney all but accuses Selina of running a “sly grog” shop—an unlicensed, illegal tent tavern. Read carefully, the full trial transcript reveals rather more than a simple theft. It is a window into the Crumps’ domestic world, their economic circumstances, and Selina’s formidable composure under cross-examination.

Looking Closer: The “Biological Bridge”

To move beyond coincidence, the question is simple: does this family match the real Thomas and Selina Crump—or is this another couple with the same names?

Until now, the assumption has been that Thomas and Selina remained in and around Melbourne. There has been no suggestion that they ever went to the goldfields. If this report refers to them, it would fundamentally change that picture. The only way to test this is to turn to the family timeline.

•         The Toddler Timeline: Birth records for Thomas and Selina show a cluster of young children: William (b. 1851),¹ Albert (b. c. 1855),² Walter (b. c. 1856),² and Theophilus (b. 1853).³ By 1856, the couple would have had exactly the right number of “bedtime-aged” children to match the scene in the tent. Notably, working back from the sibling ages given on Christina’s 1864 birth certificate—Theophilus (11), Albert (9), Walter (8)—places Albert’s birth at approximately 1855 and Walter’s at approximately 1856. Either or both may have been born on the goldfields.

•         The Missing Years: There is a distinct registration gap in the family’s Melbourne records between 1853 and 1864. This gap is perfectly filled by the 1850s court report, which places them at Brown’s Diggings.

•         The Identity Anchor: A later birth certificate for their daughter Christina (1864) confirms Thomas was a brickmaker from Kent and Selina was from Gloucestershire.² This helps to pin “Thomas and Selina” in the newspaper specifically to Thomas Crump & Selina Wheeler.

Where Was Brown’s Diggings?

Brown’s Diggings was a mining township near Smythesdale, on the Yarrowee Creek, situated approximately 103 miles north-west of Melbourne and about 13 miles from Ballarat. It lay within the broader Smythes Creek Goldfield.

Crucially, gold was found in the vicinity in 1856, mainly on a semi-circular alignment coinciding with Brown’s Diggings. This places the Crumps among the early arrivals, not latecomers. The workings were primarily alluvial, shallow digging and puddling, rather than the deep quartz mining developing elsewhere.

The community itself was raw and provisional. An Anglican school opened in 1856, the same year the Crumps were there. There was no local courthouse; serious matters were heard in Ballarat, explaining the location of the trial. The Smythesdale courthouse was not built until 1860, and the borough was not formally proclaimed until 1862.

Thomas’s Occupation: Brickmaker or Gold Digger?

This is the key research question, and the evidence, strongly favours brickmaker, though with important caveats.

Thomas is recorded as a brickmaker in Melbourne both before and after this period. Christina’s 1864 birth certificate confirms both his occupation and his origins in Kent, a region with a long brickmaking tradition. In gold rush Victoria, such skills were in high demand.

By 1856, the rush was shifting from extraction to settlement. Churches, hospitals, and public buildings all required brick. A skilled brickmaker could command strong wages, particularly one capable of preparing clay, constructing kilns, and firing consistent bricks.

The 1856 court report gives Thomas no occupational identifier—he is described simply as “the husband of the last witness.” This is neutral rather than decisive; in Victorian court reporting, occupations were noted when relevant or when they helped establish character. Their absence here cannot tell us what he was doing at Brown’s Diggings, but it does mean the court record does not contradict the brickmaker interpretation. No surviving record gives him the designation of “miner” or “digger.”

The court report does not assign Thomas an occupation, describing him only as “the husband of the last witness.” This silence is neutral—it neither confirms nor contradicts the brickmaker interpretation.

What cannot be ruled out is that Thomas, like many tradesmen, diversified. Holding a miner’s right or trying one’s luck informally was common. However, without direct evidence, identifying him as a “gold digger” remains speculative.

The most plausible reading is that Thomas worked as a brickmaker in the Ballarat–Smythesdale district, contributing to the construction boom that followed the rush.

What Lies Behind It

While Thomas appears as a brickmaker in the records, the newspaper captures the family in a vivid domestic moment.

·         The Tent Economy: Living in a tent was standard on the goldfields, regardless of occupation. The £50 involved in the case suggests the family had accumulated significant working capital—likely from trade earnings rather than chance finds.

·         The Sly Grog Allegation: The transcript weakens the idea that Selina ran a sly grog shop. When Hurley asked for ale, she sent for it rather than producing it herself. This suggests a domestic space, not a commercial one. The accusation appears to have been a tactic to discredit her.

·         Selina’s Composure: Her reply— “It was no business of the learned counsel’s”—was measured and deliberate. She understood the implication and refused to engage. Even when warned of penalties, she remained unmoved.

·         The Attempted Cover-Up: Hurley initially offered to return the money before denying the theft. Thomas’s insistence on prosecution suggests confidence and standing within the community. Hurley was ultimately convicted and sentenced to two years on the roads.

·         A Witness Worth Noting: John Varley Snowdon corroborated both Thomas and Selina, indicating a level of familiarity with the family.

Establishing the parents of Thomas Crump

Working backwards

Photographer Sandra Williamson, Gravestone Thomas Crump & Selina Crump nee Wheeler, Boroondara Cemetery, Kew, Victoria, Australia, Sandra Williamson’s private Collection, 11 July 2003[B023]

Thomas Crump died on the 13 April 1874 in Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.  On his death certificate it stated that he was born in “Kent, England” and had been living for “32 years in Victoria”[i].

Based on the time he lived in Victoria he would have arrived around 1841/2.  His death certificate also stated that he had been married twice although the name of his first wife was not listed, as particulars were unknown at the time.

Shipping Records

The only Thomas Crump arriving in Australia in 1841/2 travelled on the Marquis of Hasting arriving in Sydney on 4 February 1841, accompanied by his wife Rebecca Crump.  On Rebecca’s record, it stated that she was formerly known as Underhill presumably her maiden name as her father’s surname is also given as an Underhill.[ii].[iii].

A Closer look at Thomas’s Entitlement Certificate

Below is a transcription of the certificate

“Thomas Crump

Married Male Immigrant

Arrived by the Ship Marquis of Hastings

Bought out by C.F  Warne

A native of – Parish of Goudhurst – Kent.  Parents living at East Fairly, Coxheath near Maidstone – Fathers Name Wm Startup Mothers name Elizabeth

Calling – Agriculture Labourer

Age on embarkation – Twenty seven on 25 Nov 1840

Person certifying Registry of Baptism – None

Character, and Person certifying the same S W Nursington(?) & others

State of bodily health, strength, and probably usefulness very good

Religion Wesleyan Methodist

Read and Write – Both

Remarks – no Complaints”

The Entitlement certificate reveals that Thomas considered his parents to be William and Elizabeth Startup. Records show that his mother Elizabeth married William Startup by banns on 10 February 1816 in Tudeley with Capel, Kent, England.[iv]

Thomas left England before the 1841 census however his mother, stepfather and the family were still living in East Fairly, Coxheath near Maidstone, Kent, England that year.[v][vi]

1.  William Startup, age 48, Ag Lab [step father]
2.  Elizabeth Startup, age 51 [mother]
3. William Startup 20, Ag Lab 
4.  John Startup 17, Ag Lab 
5. James Startup 12, Ag Lab 
6. Helenor Startup 10 

Living next door to

1. Robert Startup, aged 24, Ag Lab [eldest son of William & Elizabeth, stepbrother of Thomas]
2.  Elizabeth Startup, aged 27 [wife of the eldest son of William & Elizabeth] 
3. Roseanna Startup, aged 1
4. Robert Waterman, aged 70, gardener
5. Mary Waterman, aged 55

The time & Place of Thomas’ Baptism

The pivotal evidence for the parentage of Thomas Crump is the immigration records of 1841, where his  parents are identified William Startup and Elizabeth, living in East Fairly, Coxheath near Maidstone, Kent where they are still living later in that same year at the time of the census.[vii] Elizabeth did not marry William Startup until 10 February 1816, three years after Thomas was born.[viii]  In the same immigration records his age is recorded as “Twenty seven on 25 Nov 1840” which results in a calculated birthdate of 25 Nov 1813 a two-day variance from the date recorded as in his baptism records.

Conclusion

Thomas CRUMP was born on 22^nd November 1813 and baptised a month later on 2^nd January 1814 Church of England, Goudhurst, Kent, the illegitimate son of Elizabeth Crump late a servant of Mr W. Mynn, the father was listed as William Mynn Jnr, farmer. [ix]  

His mother, Elizabeth, went on to marry William Startup on 10 February 1816, who became Thomas’s stepfather.

[Post updated 26 July 2019]

---

[i] Victorian death certificate 4922 (1874), Thomas Crump, 13 April 1874, district of Boondara, entry 1168; Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Victoria, Melbourne. 

[ii] Ancestry.com, "New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896," database and images, Ancestry.com (www.Ancestry.com : accessed 15 Jul 2019); Passenger record for Rebecca Crump,  4 February 1841, 'Marquis of Hastings' p.163, entry line 6; Citing State Records Authority of New South Wales; Kingswood New South Wales, Australia; Entitlement certificates of persons on bounty ships; Series: 5314;Reel: 1333; Ancestry.com. New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007; Entitlement certificate for Rebecca Crump, who arrived on 4 February 1841 on the vessel Marquis of Hastings in New South Wales Australia from Goudhurst, Kent, Citing State Records Authority of New South Wales; Kingswood New South Wales, Australia; Entitlement certificates of persons on bounty ships; Series: 5314;Reel: 1333

[iii] Ancestry.com, "New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896," database and images, Ancestry.com (www.Ancestry.com : accessed 15 Jul 2019); Passenger record for Thomas Crump,  4 February 1841, 'Marquis of Hastings' p.163, entry line 5; Citing State Records Authority of New South Wales; Kingswood New South Wales, Australia; Entitlement certificates of persons on bounty ships; Series: 5314;Reel: 1333; Ancestry.com. New South Wales, Australia, Assisted Immigrant Passenger Lists, 1828-1896 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007; Entitlement certificate for Thomas Crump, who arrived on 4 February 1841 on the vessel Marquis of Hastings in New South Wales Australia from Goudhurst, Kent, Citing State Records Authority of New South Wales; Kingswood New South Wales, Australia; Entitlement certificates of persons on bounty ships; Series: 5314;Reel: 1333

[iv] “Kent Marriages and Banns”, database with images, Findmypast, Marriage of William Startup of this parish, bachelor & Elizabeth Crump of this parish, spinster were married by banns on 10 February 1816 Tudeley with Capel parish register, Marriage banns 1754-1825, page 8,entry 23; Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, England, P374/1/D/2

[v] 1841 English Census HO107/457/45/ 13 The household of William & Elizabeth Startup in Coxheath Street, East Farleigh, Kent, England.

[vi] 1841 English Census HO107/457/45/ 13 The household of Robert & Elizabeth Startup in Coxheath Street, East Farleigh, Kent, England.

[vii] 1841 English Census HO107/457/45/ 13 The household of William & Elizabeth Startup in Coxheath Street, East Farleigh, Kent, England.

[viii] “Kent Marriages and Banns”, database with images, Findmypast, Marriage of William Startup of this parish, bachelor & Elizabeth Crump of this parish, spinster were married by banns on 10 February 1816 Tudeley with Capel parish register, Marriage banns 1754-1825, page 8,entry 23; Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, England, P374/1/D/2

[ix] Baptism of Thomas born 22 November 1813 & baptized 2 January 1814 (illegitimate of) Elizabeth Crump, late a servant of W. Mynn’s and William Mynn, Jnr, a farmer, Goudhurst Kent parish register Baptisms 1813-1830, entry 87; Kent Archives Office, Maidstone, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent, England.