Robert Blogg was one of 33 convicts on board the Royal Sovereign in 1835 who had prior convictions. He was considered a ‘bad character’ by the authorities and had already spent 6 ½ years in Bermuda as punishment for his first crime.

James Sevencross (Sevencroft) Blomfield was born approximately 1794. By far the most educated convict on board the convict ship Royal Sovereign he attended Cambridge University and had been a Minister of the Church for 23 years before being tried at the Old Bailey and convicted of stealing spectacles. 

In 1818 he had been appointed to the Parishes of Beyton, Aldeburgh, and Triston cam Snape in Suffolk where he lived with his wife and three children. Perhaps James found that this occupation did not provide him with enough money to maintain his young family and the lifestyle that he wished. Or perhaps he initially wished for recognition as a scholar. He seems to have had very illustrious connections, the Bishop of London, Charles Blomfield being a relative who had once given his patronage for James to travel to the Cape of Good Hope. 

James' downfall commenced after promoting a book he was to write and illustrate using information he gathered from his travels to the Cape of Good Hope. Here he had spent time in charge of the sons of Mr. Daniel, a Naval Officer. Back in England  James began in 1831 taking subscriptions for his work. He travelled  the countryside visiting clergymen and other town officials asking for 5 shillings subscription for his future work. James was ' a very fine looking man of gentlemanly exterior and imposing address' and he managed to continue collecting these subscriptions for over three years before he came across Mr. Charles Douglas. Mr. Douglas lived in Claremont Square, Pentonville and was working in his garden when James came to call.  Mr. Douglas was far too wily to be taken in by James and declined to subscribe to his work, however it was not until the next day that he found that his gold spectacles had disappeared. Coming across James in the Strong room of the Tottenham workhouse he questioned him about the spectacles and James admitted to pawning them for 10 shillings after he found the spectacles in his hat.  Mr. Douglas wasted no time in calling the constabulary.

Constable Joseph Foster accompanied James to a pawnbrokers in Grays-inn-lane near Kingscross kept by Mr. Burgess who positively identified him as the person who pawned the gold spectacles. James at this point denied stealing the spectacles saying they were in his hat by mistake. Had he been a thief he said he could have plundered to a considerable extent in the houses of the persons he visited to collect subscriptions for his book. Why, he asked would he have admitted to having the spectacles and taken the constable to the pawn shop if he had meant to steal the spectacles? In this James seems to be disingenuous. Perhaps this tactic had worked for him in the past. His respectable appearance and connections may have carried him through. This time however the authorities had twigged to his duplicity and were not to be so easily hoodwinked.  The Rev. George Hudson Thompson, Minister of Trinity Capel, Tottenham had subscribed to James' work for 5 /- and when he was told by an acquaintance that there was a notice in the Times cautioning people that a person answering James description was pursuing a course of imposition by false representation, he was furious. He left immediately to warn his neighbours against being similarly taken in.  While out on this mission he spotted James driving a 4 wheel chaise and caused him to be taken into custody.

At this point James must still have felt he would be believed. While he was undoubtedly worried abut his reputation, he probably did not believe he would be found guilty of any offence. He had, after all led a charmed life for the last three years. Surely his education, abilities and connections would stand him in good stead once again? He must though have been concerned for his wife and child whom he had brought from Barnett with their maid servant, and who were in dire financial straights. James continued to plead his innocence throughout the hearing, speaking up for himself at what he probably considered were the injustices of the case - stating that the Magistrate had not taken into consideration the number of subscriptions that had not been collected as many put down their names that did not pay. And more desperately as the trial went on -  declaring that it had always been his intention to bring out his work and that he had in fact prepared drawings expressly for the purpose of embellishing it. He could produce the person who engaged to print it and he had agreed with him for 1000 copies for 150/-  and again - 'You will find the names of upwards 300 lawyers as subscribers to the work and if I meant to practice any imposition they are a class of men who would be very soon have found me out' . He pointed out that he had been forced to pay great portions of the subscriptions towards his necessities. The Magistrate was not to be convinced, pointing out that after receiving subscriptions for so large an amount James continued to collect more although the expense of the work was trifling and the printers costs would have been well covered. The Magistrate found that there was no moral doubt that James' intention was to raise money by false pretences on the credit of a work which it was more than probably never intended to bring out however, legal proof of a guilty intention was not sufficiently strong to found an indictment upon it the charge of fraud and so would not be persisted in. However in the charge of stealing spectacles the evidence was so strong that he had no choice but to commit James for trial.

On hearing of the situation and pleas to visit his ailing and now impoverished wife, the Bishop of London, Charles Blomfield, directed that James' expenses for visiting his wife  be charged to his own expense. James was accompanied to visit his wife and child by the constable of Tottenham towards the end of June 1835 and soon after was conveyed to Newgate prison to await his trial which took place at the Old Bailey on 6th July 1835. James was sentenced to seven years transportation and 23 days later departed on the Royal Sovereign bound for Australia. Despite his age (41) he suffered no serious illnesses on the voyage to Australia although in September he was treated by the ships surgeon Francis Logan for Ringworm. His appearance on arrival must have been very different to the swarthy, fine looking gentleman who stood in the docks at the Old Bailey. His complexion was sallow and he is described as being a full two inches shorter than on previous occasions. His light brown hair had been shaved.  His convict garb  would have been a sharp contrast to his Clergyman's suit of black that he was accustomed to in London. He must have been desperately worried about his family left behind and like his fellow companions worried about what the future would bring. Where would he be sent on arrival in the Colony? A well read man, he would have an idea of the conditions that awaited him. This knowledge would probably have been enhanced by other prisoners on board some of whom were on their second transportation to Australia. 

On his arrival in the Colony James found that he was to be forwarded to the penal settlement at Port Macquarie. In 1836 in Port Macquarie there were approximately 1300 people, 360 of them were free settlers often living great distances from the settlement itself. James travelled at times quite a distance from the convict settlement and considered that outlying settlers in the district had inadequate religious instruction and so in 1838, three years after his arrival, petitioned the Governor to be allowed to provide religious instruction in the form of lectures or readings to these distant settlers. He considered the crime for which he had been convicted quite trivial and still clung at this time to his ‘sacred calling’ and wished to improve the spiritual and moral condition of those around him.  This petition to lecture was denied by the Governor and presumably James continued in his convict occupation at Port Macquarie. 

James was granted a ticket of Leave for the District in 1840 and in 1841 applied for permission to marry 38-year-old Catherine Hogan a convict who had arrived on the Diamond. At this time he was living in the town of Port Macquarie. A Certificate of Freedom was granted in 1842

Thomas Bragg, convicted of stealing a copper boiler at the Essex Quarter Sessions in November 1833, was one of the 48 farm workers on the Royal Sovereign. He was 46 years of age and was a married father of seven.

Twenty-nine year old ribbon weaver from Coventry who was convicted of stealing silk at the Warwick assizes. He was married with 3 children before transportation. Description: Missing upper tooth. He received a Ticket of Leave for Goulburn district in 1844

William Balpin (Bullpin/Bulpin) was born in Durleigh, Bridgewater. He was employed as a farm servant when he was convicted of house breaking Somerset Assizes June 1835. He was sentenced to transportation for Life.

In the indent for the Royal Sovereign he is described as being aged 22 years of age and having irregular front upper teeth; tattoos - woman and EB inside lower right arm, woman and EC inside lower left arm; 5 large indented scars back right leg. He was considered a 'bad character' as he had been transported before and was to be kept at hard labour on the roads on arrival in Australia.

In March 1842 he was reported as having absconded from John Blaxland at Newington and of being apprehended in 1844.