That pretty much nails it, then, JM.
William Woodham did not go to Australia
(unless... extraordinary effort made to hide himself etc etc which is all improbable).
BTW I was not questioning the skill and dedication of the transcribers (who I 'm sure are all wonderful people) but rather asking whether records from that period in history had failed to survive to the present day. Sounds like you folks could show the Americans a thing or two about quality control in their election.
The only clue that suggested a journey to Australia was the word 'transported' on the birth record of a relative. It's time to re-evaluate what that could mean.
[1]
The phrase "husband transported,not father of child" appears on the birth record of James Woodham March 10 1833 in Easton Royal, Wiltshire. Mother listed as Elizabeth Woodham, father listed as William Woodham. So is William the husband or the father? The remark implies he cannot be both. Maybe we are wrong in reading this to mean that William was the one transported.
[2]
'Transported' could simply mean 'taken away'.
There is that evidence that he was imprisoned for a year in 1829.
However, that makes it a little hard to see how he could have fathered a child in the same year.
Did we get the precise date on which he was imprisoned?
And did that prison statement state his age?
There was that suggestion that he was born in 1798. But did that come from the prison record?
I will have to look back through these notes.
Your continued support is welcome.
Cheers
David C