 |
| British (Colonial) Government land sales June & November 1837 were followed by continuing "land fever" |
 |
| The "First Australians" had no part in that pretty urban development and were soon banned. |
 |
| High St, Northcote, looking SSW towards Port Phillip - much profit taken to this point |
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Jesus, Matthew 16:26, KJV)
Did these Bible words relate to the British incomers? The first fleet of 1788 included a colonial chaplain, appointed by the King under the "rules and disciplines of war" (Richard Johnson), who brought a lot of literature, apparently 4,000 books* including 100 Bibles and 400 Testaments (?) containing these lines. I wonder who was likely to read them? Who took notice? (Richard Johnson did.) Should the Bible have had relevance to the British dealing with Australia?
Melbourne’s first fleet, 1803 October
Post 18 January 1788, the Navy surveys on this continent (similarly by others) were regularly occupied with finding critical water (potable, plentiful and accessible), food (marine, feathered, land-based), farming soil, a secure and safe port for tall sailing ships, ship-building timber, and good pasture.
Melbourne's first fleet was different to that of Phillip's of 1788, although its outcome was similar to Botany Bay’s! Two ships brought Port Phillip not only the Royal Navy and the convicts, but 18 “free settler” families. (The settler-developer idea was one envisaged in Phillip's earliest instructions, 25 April, 1787.) Lieutenant Governor David Collins arrived in Port Phillip Bay on the H.M.S. "Calcutta" (56) on 11 (or 9*) October 1803. The Port had been surveyed the year before by Lt John Murray, RN, though the Collins expedition did not have the findings.
Collins' Peninsula site, “8 miles” from the harbour mouth, was chosen as more secure for the British (fewer “natives” so less chance of “attacks”). No interaction with Aboriginal people was reported - they had learned the lesson of naval artillery - see following. However, the Peninsula earth could not be successfully cultivated and abandonment was approved. On 27 January, 1804 the first departure to Van Diemen’s Land was ready. Convict absconders from the settlement (12 or more) included William Buckley, who remained free in the Port Phillip area for 32 years. No recorded ship visits happened in that time, though later Buckley reported having seen some.
18 months earlier in the Bay: Treachery, or - Strategy?
17 February 1802
.. in an instant the whole of the treacherous body that Mr Bowen and four of our people were sitting in opened out to the right and left, and at once left them all open to the party in ambush who immediately were on their feet and began to throw their spears. Still, such was the forbearance of the officer that only one piece was fired over their heads, but this was found only to create a small panic, and our party was obliged to teach them by fatal experience the effect of our walking sticks.
The first fire made them run and one received two balls between his shoulders, still some of them made to stop to heave. The second fire they set off with astonishing speed and most likely one received a mortal wound. …. To increase their panic as they passed along I gave them a discharge of our guns, loaded with round and grape but am almost certain that they did them no damage …
Thus did this treachery and unprovoked attack meet with its just punishment and at the same time taught us a useful lesson to be more cautious in future.
…if we may judge from the number of their fires and other marks this part of the country is not thin of inhabitants. … Lt John Murray, RN, commanding “Lady Nelson”
No doubt Aboriginal survivors were convinced they should not be in conflict with the Navy and would have learned caution about tall ships.
The local inhabitants had earlier showed curiosity about what weapons these Royal Navy incomers had. Possibly (most probably?) they had previous experience of firearms from the visits (and depredations) of the Bass Strait sealers. Naval personnel would be more proficient in rate of fire...
Possessing the Possessions.
8 March 1802
As we now intended sailing in a few days I judged it consistent with His Majesty’s instructions (a copy of which I was furnished with from the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of New South Wales) to take possession of this port in the form and manner laid down by the said instructions, and accordingly at 8 o’clock in the morning the united colours of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were hoisted on board and on Point Paterson and at one o’clock under a discharge of three volleys of small arms and artillery the port was taken possession of in the name of his Sacred Majesty (sic) George the Third, of Great Britain and Ireland, King, etc., etc. Served a double allowance of grog. Lt John Murray, (who named it Port King; Governor King changed it to Phillip).
How many times was the take possession formula used on this continent? Did that two-stage design supposedly allow opportunity for local protest or objection? If so, it was unlikely to generate any response from people carrying spears.
Second Comer
27 April 1802
About 6 weeks later, Matthew Flinders entered the Bay on his tall ship, "Investigator", not knowing he was second, and visited: Arthur’s seat...There were many marks of natives, such as deserted fire places and heaps of oyster shells; and upon the peninsula which forms the south side of the port, a smoke was rising, but we did not see any of the people. …. (Matthew Flinders). People had learned from the Murray expedition!
Peace on the Yarra
3 February 1803
We went up the river until we came to rocks; could not get the boat over; crossed it at a place the natives had made for catching fish. It was still salt though a great fall. ….
4 February
… I returned to the boat and after dinner we all got on board and arrived on board the vessel at dusk. Saw a canoe and two native huts. …
8 February
Sowed some seed by the natives’ hut, where we slept. …
I went about 2 miles inland and fell in with seven natives. …
(James Flemming on Charles Grimes’ Yarra survey - they were not the Navy.)
Resistance to the Navy - near St Kilda?
16(?) October 1803
The NW side of the port, where a level plain extends to the northward as far as the horizon, appears to be by far the most populous; at this place, upwards of two hundred natives assembled round the surveying boats, and their obviously hostile intentions made the application of firearms absolutely necessary to repel them, by which one native was killed, and two or three wounded.
(Lt James Hingston Tuckey surveying from Collins’ forces at Sullivan Bay, Sorrento)
Port Phillip Casualties 1802-1803
I have not done the research but it seems likely the above are all that are recorded. All of the casualties were Aboriginal people. All were firearm injuries. The witnesses describe two deaths and several woundings (3 or 4 at least). As those woundings were by musket fire, I doubt any survived the trauma from lead balls. Some vegetation was battered by cannon fire, with unknown injuries to the people. Perhaps they escaped on that day and knew better thereafter.
Resistance
Resistance, killing and wounding was nothing new in the Colony - see the table on the first 14 years:
Aboriginal Help
William Buckley (and companion convicts) absconded 30/12/1803 from that short-lived Collins’ Port Phillip settlement. Buckley evidently safely transited the entire Bay. He spent 32 years living with the Aboriginal people until he re-joined white society. He was not the Navy!
23 December 1852
Christopher McRae, age 17 years, "Ticonderoga" passenger from Inverness, survivor of the Highland clearances and the voyage, arrived Coburg (sic) at the McIvor residence. Christopher and companion had walked the bayfront from quarantine in Point Nepean, 60 miles to Melbourne. “They drank from puddles in the rocks, and their only sustenance came courtesy of the Aboriginal people who ate the shellfish on the shore, and a couple of surprised but kindly squatters or leaseholders who took pity on the lads and their story, furnishing them with an occasional meal (Veitch).”
Mixed (Possession) Message?
Admiralty to Lt James Cook, RN
You are likewise to observe the Genius, Temper, Disposition and Number of the Natives, if there be any and endeavour by all proper means to cultivate a Friendship and Alliance with them, making them presents of such Trifles as they may Value inviting them to Traffick, and Shewing them every kind of Civility and Regard; taking Care however not to suffer yourself to be surprized by them, but to be always upon your guard against any Accidents.
You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors. (From additional instructions, 30 July 1768)
By Lt James Cook, Commanding Officer of "Endeavour"
Notwithstand I had in the Name of his Majesty taken posession of several places upon this coast I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took posession of the whole Eastern Coast from the above Latitude down to this place by the Name of New South Wales together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship (James Cook, 22 August 1770)
Exactly what was meant by the puzzling qualifications, “consent” and “uninhabited”? Is it just a question of land cultivation? Was "coast" meant to describe a narrow strip near the sea? Cook (and his RN successors on this continent) repeatedly “took possession” but could hardly have reached consent with anyone. They did know Aboriginal people were on the Australian continent. There seems to have been an unwritten but higher policy at work. "Possession" was 100% of the British Law (power) and doubtless the Royal Navy stood ready to repel any competition. Phillip was sent to a vast New South Wales covering the eastern half of the continent. The land was to be cultivated - in fact it was "cultivate or perish".
Guns - Wide and Unfair Unfair Distinction!
17 December 1824
as two of the people were employed in procuring firewood in a small clump of trees not far from the tent, two natives sprang towards them from behind the trees. These, however, on the men presenting their muskets at them, made signs of peace. Mr Hume, who was at hand now approached, when laying down his arms, and beckoning the men to do the same, the natives followed the example... they seemed to wish to describe that a vessel had been in that bay, and that the people had landed; ... seen men felling trees ..
Messrs Hovell and Hume had been desirous of taking their horses in the direction of what they supposed to be Port Phillip, but the conduct of these people, and the numerous fires .. made them conclude, that it would be unsafe for the party to separate.
William Hilton Hovell & Hamilton Hume, per Dr William Bland, 1831
9 March 1836
Derrah-Mert and Bait-Bainger went out shooting for me, brought home only one bird, gave it to them. Began to boil rice for the Blacks - Mem: they will not eat it without sugar. Report brought in that three women have been shot by white men in Western Port…. John Pascoe Fawkner on the Yarra.
On 26 August 1841 Lord Russell wrote to the Governor of the Colony (George Gipps):
With regard to the Act No. 8 to prohibit the Natives from having firearms or Ammunition in their possession without the permission of a Magistrate, I am of opinion that to deprive them of arms, which they have become possessed of by lawful means, would establish a wide and unfair distinction between them and their White brethren. Whatever evil might arise from their use would be far inferior to the utter alienation and suspicion that must arise from such a distinction. Continual Wars to take away fire-arms would be the result of attempts on the part of the Civil Powers to enforce such a Law. For these reasons Her Majesty has been pleased to disallow that Act.
Lord Russell to Governor George Gipps, 26 August 1841
Too late! The firearms taking had happened well before this, apparently without recompense. Alienation and suspicion - yes. No continual wars seem to have resulted in Port Phillip District but strife there was in the double-minded Colony.
17 April 1840 (Fels, 2011)
La Trobe (Superintendent Port Phillip District from 30/9/1839) visited for a discussion about firearms, then sent two white constables to collect the Aboriginal owned firearms from the east of Port Phillip District. There was much dissatisfaction and Thomas (Assistant Protector) was forced to protect the constables.
The Colonial Governor and Legislative Council had taken action 11 August, 1840, but with no violence by constables nor free persons unless absolutely necessary(!) They said:
WHEREAS in some parts of the Colony of New South Wales the aboriginal natives have obtained possession of fire arms and it is considered dangerous to the public security to allow the said aboriginal natives to have keep or use any description of fire arms or ammunition except as hereinafter excepted Be it therefore enacted by His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof That from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any aboriginal native or half-caste usually abiding with such natives to have or keep any kind of fire arms or ammunition unless with the written permission of any Justice of the Peace resident in the district which any such aboriginal native or half-caste shall usually frequent.
2. And be it enacted That it shall and may be lawful for any constable within the said Colony or any free person whatsoever to obtain or take from any such aboriginal native or half-caste not holding such permission as aforesaid every kind of fire arms or ammunition which any such person may have and lodge the same with the Police Magistrate of the district in which such fire arms or ammunition shall be so obtained or taken Provided that no personal violence be used towards any such aboriginal native or half-caste further than may be absolutely necessary for obtaining or taking such fire arms or ammunition as aforesaid.
3. And be it enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person to give or lend to any aboriginal native or any half-caste usually abiding with such natives not holding such permission as aforesaid any gun musket pistol or any kind of fire arms or ammunition whatsoever and if any person whosoever shall give or lend to any aboriginal native or half-caste not holding such permission as aforesaid any gun musket pistol or any kind of fire arms or ammunition what soever he or she shall for every such offence forfeit and pay a penalty of not less than ten pounds nor more than twenty-five pounds to be recovered before any one or more Justice or Justices of the Peace for the said Colony.
Just over a year later Lord Russell’s reply of disallowance was written - see above - (and would be read months later) reflecting an ambivalent attitude to the welfare of Aboriginal people. (The same view of Aboriginal people as human beings ["brethren"] entitled to respect appears at other points in the record along with the desire that they prosper, provided that the Colony was not lost nor the poorer thereby.) I have not seen any reference to Aboriginal people having their weapons returned in 1842, or any time.
The Search
The surveys on this continent by the Navy (similarly by others) looked for the natural treasures: Water (essential, potable, plentiful and accessible), food, cultivable soil, a secure and safe port for tall ships, ship-building timber, and good pasture. Treasures indeed! These were found and exploited, as the first three were by Aboriginal people, who also had their own land use practices. The environment was soon radically changed, quite rapidly where white people put down roots and speculated, etc. The Gold Rush was to accelerate the development processes. Various British and Colonial writers show consciousness that this all was at the expense and against the will of the known original Aboriginal inhabitants. I suppose the actual steps taken, day by day, were justified under the (unsupportable) view that Australia was just there for the taking - they (eg, Tench, 1793) saw no one else cultivating the land ...! Anyway, European nations followed a "right to rule" approach to the rest of the world.
You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of our subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our will and pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the offence. You will endeavour to procure an account of the numbers inhabiting the neighbourhood of the intended settlement, and report your opinion to one of our Secretaries of State in what manner our intercourse with these people may be turned to the advantage of this colony. From Instructions to Governor Phillip, 25 April 1787. His successors had this to follow as well. The history does not fit!
If Cook or Phillip had encountered in New South Wales (the eastern half of the continent) an iron-using agricultural culture in some way resembling their own, the story of the land would have been different. As it was, the instruction (above) shows what was anticipated and did come to pass.
What was possible?
At the time human beings were not seen as such and as entitled to be treated as such. British society was very stratified and those in power were there by "Divine right". The results are seen in the expectaion of lower class submission and obedience, in the draconian laws filling the prison hulks, and the Highland "clearances", and the enclosures, and the subjection of the Irish. The concept of "native" or "savage" (Tench, 1793) as even lesser beings was pervasive. How could English Bible injunctions be relevant?
I consider Phillip did his best at the outset, within all the limits placed on him. That had changed by December, 1790, when Phillip ordered a punitive expedition to Botany Bay to make "severe example of" the "treacherous" spearer of M'Entire, including 6 to be punished. Sadly, it appears to me from the report by Tench (not found in Phillip's despatches) that Phillip had reached a point of exasperation and lumped the "guilty" with the "innocent". (The expedition came back with axes un-blooded and bags empty of heads.)
Sometimes officers of "the State" are given instructions incapable of actual execution. It is evident the foundation instructions (to Cook and Phillip) soon lapsed; note the move in concept from prison to settlement (though note the word "colony")! Somehow there was a superior agenda. The events in the Colony also had a background of the reports made by Cook and Banks and the resistance expectations seen in the "fuzzy" planning stages in far off London.
Time and time again, profit (gain) was the real priority, along with security against the French. There were the opportunists who were simply "making their fortune", seeking self-gratification and the evasion of restriction and limitation. Many British people tried their best to be humane and to do justly. For example, Baron Glenelg (Secretary of State) and James Stephens expressed desire for a better future for Australian Aboriginal peoples.
THE APOLOGY: The action of Mr Kevin Rudd (then Australian Prime Minister) on 13/02/2008 is the subject of a documentary. The film uncovers some of the continued loss. (Viewing probably requires log in.) https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/943714371743
 |
| Surf Beach on nearby Phillip Island - ochre abounds |
 |
| Perhaps Aboriginal people exploited this deposit prior to 1842 (when the Admiralty licenced farmers) |
Some references
- “John Murray: Port King”
- “Matthew Flinders: A New Discovery?”
- “James Flemming: The Yarra Discovered”
- “James Hingston Tuckey: Port Phillip’s First Fleet”
- “John Pascoe Fawkner: Mutton and Potatoes”
- "William Hilton Hovell and Hamilton Hume: A Little Better Understood"
in The Birth of Melbourne, ed Tim Flannery, (Text Publishing, Melbourne, 2002) - with a collection of primary sources, including the above
Historical Records of Australia - La Trobe University Library online research, etc - see following
http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Index
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/gazette?q=
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ (for NSW Legislation from 1824)
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/1788-to-1810-Early-European-Settlement.aspx
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/S/Sealing.htm
Veitch, M: Hell Ship (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2018)
Fels, M.H.: “I Succeeded Once”, ANU E Press, 2011 (re William Thomas, Assistant Protector, 1838-1849)
Historical Records of Australia - La Trobe University Library online research, etc - see following
http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Index
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/gazette?q=
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ (for NSW Legislation from 1824)
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/1788-to-1810-Early-European-Settlement.aspx
http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/S/Sealing.htm
Veitch, M: Hell Ship (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2018)
Fels, M.H.: “I Succeeded Once”, ANU E Press, 2011 (re William Thomas, Assistant Protector, 1838-1849)
https://nepeanhistoricalsociety.asn.au/history/first-settlement-1803/
https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/
Tench, W: A complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson, (London, 1783)
https://www.commongrace.org.au/aboriginal_and_torres_strait_islander_justice
* Re the list of books brought by R. Johnson, I found this blog item but could not verify source content: https://atributetoaustralianchristians.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/richard-johnson/
King James Version of the Bible sourced from Biblegateway.com
Contemporary images by author.
No comments:
Post a Comment