New South Wales became a colony of Britain in 1788, when the first fleet arrived at Botany Bay. Historical debates on whether the colony in Australia was a quick-fix solution to Britain’s overflowing penitentiary system or a strategic imperial and commercial venture have also attempted to decipher why Britain chose Australia to be a colony. A close look at the two debates reveals that it is likely that Britain’s intentions were mainly focused on ridding the country of criminals, as arguments concerning the potential commercial success of the colony had been disputed in the government for a number of years. Despite early explorers’ reports of New South Wales’s potential as a colony, when the decision in 1788 was made to send settlers, the government sent a fleet of convicts.
It is important to address at the socio-economic issues that were weighing on Britain in the late eighteenth century. Britain’s economic hardships combined with a rapidly increasing population created the conditions for an increase in poverty and a high crime rate. Strict penalties in the criminal courts were required because of the lack of an effective police force in the country.[i] Transportation to the colonies was an alternative punishment for juries and judges to lessen the harsh sentences on criminals, especially those convicted for theft, for which the penalty was death. Also, the overloaded jails were becoming an economic burden as it was expensive to keep criminals in the system.[ii] Britain had lost a valuable colony with American, so sending covicts there was no longer a possibility. At the same time, Britian was fighting off other European powers to keep hold of their colonies in Canada, Africa and Asia. Historical records do not clarify if the losing of America meant that Britain would seek out more colonies, or if its loss of America had deterred it from imperial intentions elsewhere.
Alan Frost’s study “Botany Bay: An Imperial Venture of the 1780s” supports the newer British imperialist theories on why Australia was chosen as a colony. In his article on Botany Bay, he does not support the convict theory, but he does not offer much in support of Britain’s imperialist motives either. Frost’s argument is similar to E. C. K. Gonner’s in 1888, arguing that a colony in New South Wales was desirable for imperialistic reasons. It could be a strategic naval base and could provide hemp and flax resources, and the transportation of criminals was just a convenient way of establishing an experimental colony. The settlement at Botany Bay, in other words, would not have occurred if there was not some foreseeable economic or imperialistic advantage.[iii] Frost, using the same letter written by Lord Sydney as evidence as rival theorist Mollie Gillen, retrieves evidence of the naval option over the transportation argument. He uses the evidence of James Cook’s accounts of his first voyage, and the recommendations of Joseph Banks, but he shows the interest mainly lay with the potential of New Zealand, and not Botany Bay directly.[iv] His arguments are largely based on Bank’s accounts of the land’s fertility. However, although Banks’s reports of stretches of fertile grass, he also wrote that the country was extremely dry and that:
“Upon the whole of New Holland, tho in every respect the most barren country I have seen, is not so bad but that between the productions of sea and Land a company of People who have misfortune of being shipwrecked upon it might support themselves, even by the resources that we have seen.” [v]
Banks repeatedly reports on the barrenness of the land, and although it could support a company of people, it is not described as fertile as Frost claims. Banks had recommended it to the government, however, as having some potential, and includes a list of the crops that exist there, and could be improved on with proper cultivation.[vi] Frost argues that two people with knowledge of flax cultivation were sent on the first fleet in 1788, and that tools for the expedition were ordered in 1786, proving that there was always an intent to develop the flax and hemp industries in New South Wales, although Mollie Gillen does not think that those two skilled people were enough if the government wanted to build an entire industry.[vii] Frost’s arguments prove that there was a desire to discover more about agricultural potential and start some cultivation (most likely experimental), but it does not support his thesis that the government had intended to build a flax or hemp industry.
Gillen discusses in her article “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, Not Empire” the ways in which the accepted convict theory has been challenged by the imperialist flax theory. Gillen states that Gonner was the first to question the accepted criminal theory.[viii] She uses the evidence of Lord Sydney’s letters on convict disposal, James Matra’s recommendation of New South Wales as a colony, and Governor Philip’s instructions to the government to back up her argument. Despite reports of Botany Bay’s potential as a colony, the government did not pursue that possibility until it was desperate for a new colony for transportation.[ix] Gillen supports this thesis by giving examples of other transportation attempts in Africa, despite the fact that James Matra and Lord Sydney had been suggesting Botany Bay as a desirable colony since the 1770s. In 1785, Lord Sydney suggested Botany Bay again, but as a solution to the transportation problem.[x] Sydney’s mention of economic gain in his letter was to justify the government spending on the actual voyage itself, but his main focus is transportation:
“It remains therefore, that we adhere as much as possible to the practice approved by long experience, of employing the services of such criminals in remote and rising settlements. For this purpose the establishment on the eastern coast of New Holland has been projected, and carried on with every precaution to render it as beneficial as possible.”[xi]
Gillen uses Parliamentary records to prove that the flax and hemp theory was not considered important at the time because of the resources’ availability in Ireland. She argues that the first fleet was not equipped with the tools to cultivate flax, and that the convicts were not trained to grow flax or chosen because of their skills. Ships arriving after the first fleet also carried convicts for two years without proper supplies to build an industry, despite requests from Governor Philip. However, Governor Philip gives evidence that Botany Bay was chosen as a suitable transportation location as opposed to the other side of the continent because of its resources, still implying its main use as a convict colony: “more favourable accounts given of this side of the continent than of the other, was sufficient to decide the choice of the British Government in appointing a place for the banishment of a certain class of criminals.”[xii]
Gonner writes that Philip did not want convicts to “lay the foundation of an empire,” hoping for volunteer settlers and proper industry to arrive[xiii] But even Gonner, who supports the imperialist theory, admits that records show that Arthur Philip and Lord Sydney had recommended New South Wales as a transportation destination specifically. Despite James Matra and Governor Philip both reporting on the colony’s commercial possibilities, it is important to note, as Gillen discusses, that arguments of commercial venture did win government support to colonize, rather that since no other convict colony attempts had been suitable so far, New South Wales was selected as a transportation destiny. Whether Botany Bay was chosen because of commercial and imperial advantages, New South Wales would not have been colonized, nor the proposal approved by the government in 1786, if it had not been a solution to the penitentiary overload in Britain.
[i] Robert Bucholtz and Key, Newton. Early Modern England: 1485-1714 (United
Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing ltd, 2009), 386.
[ii] Jeremy Black. Eighteenth Century Britain: 1688-1783 (United Kingdom: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2008), 190.
[iii] E. C. K. Gonner. “The Settlement of Australia” The English Historical Review (1888),
631 and Alan Frost, 317.
[iv] Joseph Frost. “Botany Bay: An Imperial Venture of the 1780s” English Historical
Review (1985), 320.
[v] Joseph Banks. “The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks, 1768-1771.” From the Library
of New south Wales http://southseas.nla.gov.au/index_voyaging.html (accessed January 30th, 2010), 278.
[vi] Ibid, 314.
[vii] Frost, 323.
[viii] Mollie Gillen. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, Not Empire” The English
Historical Review (1982), 740.
[ix] Ibid, 741-2.
[x] Ibid, 755.
[xi] Philip, Arthur “The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay” London, Printed for
John Stockdale, Piccadilly, 1789.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Gonner, 629.
The incorporation of a variety of sources, allowed the author to present a concise yet descriptive analysis of the socio-economic problems in Europe (focusing on London) during the 1770s, which led to the decision of establishing a penal colony in Australia. This background knowledge allows an audience with a varied range of knowledge on this issue, to understand the author’s argument.
The incorporation of E.C.K Gonner, strengthens the author’s thesis. Initially Gonner, presents a similar thesis to Frost, that Australia was chosen for “imperialistic reasons”. As the essay progresses, Frost’s fellow imperialist theorist’s conclusion that “Arthur Philip and Lord Sydney recommended New South Wales as a transportation destination specifically”, weakens Frost’s argument. This proved that while some information indicates that New South Wales had naval and imperial origins; there is overwhelming evidence and support for the argument that Australia started as a penal colony.
Primary sources from Lord Sydney, James Matra, James Cook and Joeseph Banks are analyzed by Alan Frost and Mollie Gillen. The author of this essay uses both theorists analysis of the primary sources to strengthen Mollie Gillen’s argument. The comparison weakens Frost’s argument, by highlighting misread information and not acknowledging key information. For example, Frost’s analysis of Joseph Bank’s journal entries, fails to acknowledge Bank’s emphasis on the “barren and infertile land” of Australia. In addition, this essay uses primary sources from Arthur Philip and Lord Sydney’s to prove they primarily viewed New South Wales as a penal transportation destiny, not a possibly prosperous flax industry.
I would have liked this paper to dive more into Mollie Gillen’s reasoning. The author focuses on proving Frost wrong, through using primary sources. Yet, as this essay aims to suggest Australia was initially a penal colony, there should have been much more emphasis on Gillen’s thesis; only interweaving Frost through the paper to strengthen Gillen’s argument.
The three strengths of this essay were as follows:
1. This essay outlined the important finding of each representative historian. In addition, it also provided convincing critique of Gillen’s point of views. Such as Gonner’s opinion, Lord Sydney’s letter and so on.
2. This essay did mention the socio-economic issue was the fundamental concern of the British government on policy making. This explanation transformed the convict problem into a socio-economic problem. It provided better understanding about setting up the colony was an economic strategic plan. Feasible economic condition was a main reason to colonize Botany Bay.
3. The explanation and argument of this essay were very straightforward and clear. The arguments of two views were well-presented.
The three critiques of this essay were as follows:
1. When this paper argued that two people in the First Fleet had experience and expertise in flux development. At the same time, Gillen also mentioned there was no obvious data presented that there were intention and criteria on selecting the specific people aboard the First Fleet. This fellow student did not point out this and make a comparison; No concrete data that supported Frost’s argument was provided as well.
2. The conclusion of this paper was a bit weak. The government approval was very important to the Botany decision. But this paper did not mention what ground was based on when the government made decision.
3. This essay mentioned that checking the land’s barrenness was the first concern of voyage. The purpose of the voyage was looking for the colonies. But this purpose of voyage did not mean that the empire was seeking economic advantage on making this specific decision.