[sexual assault, on child - rape - carnal knowledge of child - religion]

R. v. Ayton

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 24 October 1835

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 31 October 1835[1]

Robert Nelson Ayton was sentenced to death, without any hope of mercy, for carnally knowing a child under 10 years of age. His Honor made an affecting address to the prisoner. He said - "You had acquired a character for sanctity, and the father of the child had taken you from poverty and distress into his house to instruct his children, and you have committed an outrage upon one of his offspring, too horrible to contemplate. Crimes of this sort, I am happy to say, are less frequent than formerly, but I have observed, they are generally perpetrated by persons professing much, but possessing no sincere regard for religion. Make your peace with God, and expect no mercy to this world.

* * *

The miscreant[?] who was arraigned at the Bar of the Supreme Court on Saturday last, upon a charge of violating the person of an infant child, was found guilty, and upon being brought up for judgment, received sentence of death!!

This attrocious case caused considerable excitement in the Town, which, under the particular circumstances of it, and the known employment of the wretch at the period of the committal of the detestable offence, is not to be wondered at. The father of the infant child stated in his evidence, that, he admitted him into his house upon the faith of his employment as a lecturer, or preacher at the Penitentiary. He might, or might not, have been aware of his previous irregularities, but not being acquainted with them from actual observation, the circumstance of his having received, and his being under the countenance of the Government Authorities, was enough to make him doubtful of the truth of any information which might have reached him to his prejudice, and rather placed him in his estimation as a misrepresented man, - as a man whom the foul mouth of calumny had injured. We cannot wonder that the knowledge of the parent of the fellow’s being employed as a Minister of the Gospel, was considered by him a sufficient inducement to entrust to him the care of his infant offspring. The father was not aware of the needful qualities for a man to be employed in the sacred office of dispensing the duties of our holy religion in this Colony - and from such ignorance alone, we say, it is no matter of astonishment that he was deceived, - he did not probably enquire into the fellow’s character - he felt himself satisfied in his integrity and worth, - knowing that he was actually employed, (until his appointment was confirmed) with the sanction, and under the authority of the Church Chaplain.

The general, or rather the adopted plan of this Country - (for we believe such a plan is unknown in any other civilized country) - of nominating persons to the situations of the sacred offices of preachers - who are not, and cannot be, from their former pursuits in life, qualified to discharge them with faithfulness - is bad - very bad. The fellow Ayton is not the only blacksmith and operative craftsman who has been entrusted by the local Authorities, with the performance of the duties of Lecturer, or Scriptural Reader, or Minister, to the wretched convicts in the chain gangs and Penitentiaries. If the unhappy beings have souls, and we presume that the Authorities imagine it to be the case - they are worth the saving if possible, and are of as much importance in a scriptural point of view, as the spiritual essence of those to whom the salvation of them is committed. It is evidently the intention of the Government to affect some good purpose in the moral or religious discipline of the convicts - else - why the appointments - we complain of - then, if it is desirable that good shall be the result of the labours of the teachers - it is worth while to entrust the means in the hands of men, whose education, and known respectability entitle them to the confidence, necessary for teachers to possess. A Theological education - may not be a paramount object to the qualification of the teacher, but a respectable character, and honest deportment certainly is essential.

It is the nomination of men of bad character, which is materially worse than men of no character at all to situations, that ought to be filled by men of consideration, that has brought so much misery upon the country - and has rendered the Government of it so deserving of the obloquy of the people. Who in the name of christian charity, could - not only have nominated - but approved of the application of such a wretch as Ayton for the office of Public Lecturer of Divinity? Who, we ask, did so nominate, and pro. tem. appoint the wretch to the performance of the duties to the inmates of the Prisoners Barracks? The World say, and say loudly, that our Reverend Head of the Episcopalian Establishment did do so. We call upon the Reverend Divine, to prove that he did not do so - if merely to save his character from the stain, which will assuredly remain upon it, an everlasting memento - if the matter is not cleared up to the satisfaction of himself and of the religious and moral community. We are not desirous to attract the attention of the Revd. Chaplain, but we feel it to be our duty as a public journalist, to urge him to protect his character from slander if he is guiltless.

If we could find an apology for the appointment of the wretch who is the subject of those remarks - to the situation of a spiritual teacher, we would not now censure the appointment; but we recollect, that about two years since, while he was employed in the Colonial Hospital in some menial capacity, he was detected in the commission of a profligate deed, and was discharged from the employment, in consequence - after having been fairly proved deserving it, by a court of enquiry - which was held at the desire of the Episcopalian Chaplain. With this fact staring us in the face, we cannot account for his being permitted to exercise the holy functions of religion, and find it difficult to believe, that his employment was sanctioned by the Chaplain. Yet - by whom else could it be?

Another circumstance, that comes to our recollection, we cannot avoid mentioning. Thus Ayton - this cattle doctor - was a short time since taken by the hand - made bail-fellow-well-met - and introduced into society, by a certain medical practitioner of this Town. So far was the medical profession disgraced by the introduction of this fellow - into the practice of it, that we find him actually employed, as though regularly diploma’d operating in a post mortem examination of a female. So outrageous was this circumstance considered at the time of its happening, that notice was taken of the operator, who found protection from public indignation, under cover of being the - acknowledged apprentice and assistant of his patron.

The fellow was not to blame - those gentlemen are alone to blame, who took him by the hand, and thereby elevated him from the walk of life to which he was accustomed, to a sphere beyond himself. We are astonished that any gentleman bred regularly to the medical profession, should introduce a man, who was notoriously bad in his private character - a known professionist, only, in religion, and moreover, a mere cattle doctor - into society as his assistant! And apprentice! To this cause - to this impolitic association of a gentleman holding a respectable situation in society - with the depraved wretch-Ayton - may be attributed all the ills that he had occasioned to it. But for such an association - and the consequence he gained by it, he would never have dared to obtrude himself upon public notice, as a medical practitioner. He would not dare to have pitted his services in the profession against those of the authorised members of it - again we declare, that but for such ill-judged notice by a medical gentleman - this miscreant Ayton - would now, in all probability, have been labouring at the anvil - but for the unaccountable, the disgraceful - the unparalleled - notice of the fellow - the peace of a respectable family would have been saved, and the person of a tender infant been preserved from a villain’s violation.

The parties who feel themselves alluded to, may consider that our remarks are uncalled for - we think the reverse - and that it is our duty as a public journalist to protect the humblest member of society, if it be possible, from being sacrificed to the sinister scheming of any man or men. The domestic happiness of private families, and the virtuous education of our youth, is of two much importance to society at large, to permit the smallest portion of it to be sacrificed to further the interest of any speculators. Introduce a villain into society, and we maintain that the villanies he perpetrates, lie upon the head of him or them who provide him with the opportunity for their perpetration; and we declare it now and again as our firm belief, that the medical profession would not suffer the disgrace it has suffered, by his illegal practice - had he not been countenance, and received in public, he acknowledged support of a regular practitioner - and further, that had not ill-judged confidence (to give it the most pardonable term) placed him in the situation - of public Lecturer and Preacher, or Reader - for it is all the same - the circumstance would not have occurred, that has placed him in the situation he is now in. The father gave it in evidence, that upon the faith of his Government employment as a Lecturer - he admitted him into his family - and with confidence confided to him the care of his infant.

Notes

[1] See also Launceston Advertiser, 29 October 1835; and Hobart Town Courier, 6 November 1835, naming the defendant as Robert Melson Ayton.

Along with two men named Kitto and Dunn, Ayton was hanged, as noted by the Tasmanian, 4 December 1835. It continued:

"They all attributed their wretched fate to that greatest of all causes - drunkenness. We lament to state that, in defiance of all example, the consumption of 'the infernal dose' is on the increase."