Stuart MacIntyre on the History Wars

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/85/macintyre.html

Andrew Fitzmaurice on the History Wars

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=948

News: PM Rudd calls for an end to the History Wars

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/27/2669177.htm

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/index.html

Women’s suffrage and women and politics

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/POL/women/Women.htm

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~women/Introduction.html

Stolen Generation

http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/stolen-generations/

best,

J.R.

Here is the url link to the documentary on Ned Kelly we were watching in today’s lecture.

http://www.guba.com/watch/3000097422

J.R.

Although the colonization of Australia quickly led to exploitation and inequality towards the natives, it should be noted that this was not the first intention. James Cook, the man who first navigated Newfoundland, the Hawaiian Islands, and New Zealand, was chosen by the British parliament because of his impeccable service record and strong ability in mapping new territories. To Cook’s credit, he and Joseph Banks did a good job of mapping and describing the landmarks and native wildlife that they encountered throughout the voyage. However, what creates an issue is the depth of exploration. Cook’s observations were made from the safety and distance of his ship, the HM Bark Endeavour, and thusly little could be made of describing the vast mainland of Australia. For instance, in his journals describing New Holland, the western part of Australia, Cook depicts the continent as a well watered land with many brooks and springs.^[i] In actuality, the geography of Western Australia past the coast is a desert, with little to no water in many areas. It is because of assumptions like this by Cook and other early explorers such as William Dampier, another British explorer and navigator, that the first fleet commissioned to settle New South Wales not only had a misrepresentation of the useable land, but also the continent’s agricultural abilities.^[ii]

The image of Australia made from early explorers like James Cook may have been incorrect regarding the continent as a whole, but that does not mean men like Cook deliberately lied about what they observed. It is quite correct that along the coastal regions, especially in the area of New South Wales, Australia is a highly inhabitable and lush environment. The animals Cook and Banks describe, such the “Kanguru”, wild dogs (known today as dingos), and unique black swans are all inhabitance of Australia, and for the most part Cook does an ample job of exploring the different food sources, be it bird, fish, land mammal like a kangaroo, or shellfish.^[iii] What creates controversy is Cook’s unabashed conviction of Australia’s raw resource potential calling Australia a, “Country in the pure state of Nature…Industry of Man has had nothing to do with any part of it and yet we find all such things as nature hath bestow’d upon it in a flourishing state”^[iv] Cook’s inability to properly describe Australia led to the colonization of the continent under somewhat false pretenses, which would ultimately lead to settlers forcing European values on the continent and more importantly, the native inhabitants.

Although justifiable in the time it was committed, the views of the early colonists and explorers was that of exploitation and superiority in Australia. By the 1788 voyage of Sir Arthur Phillip and the first fleet of settlers, it had been decided that New South Wales and, after exploration and colonization, the rest of Australia would be deemed a penal colony for the vastly overcrowded British prison system.^[v] William Bradley, a naval officer who participated in the first fleet sent to New South Wales, wrote a series of journals describing his voyage to Australia and the first year living in the new penal colony. From him, it is possible to see the thoughts and observations of one of the first Europeans to live in Australia. In his accounts, Bradley recounts the fleet’s first encounters with the native people. Although he does not blatantly degrade or dehumanize the natives in his journal entries, Bradley constantly depicts the indigenous people as inferior or less civilized. For example, never does Bradley show an instant where definition is attempted with the natives in the early encounters. Instead, the natives are depicted as brash, territorial, and somewhat childlike. In his journal September 20, 1788 Bradley describes an encounter between his crew and a native group where the boat crews amused themselves by dressing up the native peoples with, “paper and other whimsical things”^[vi] The crew does not respect the native’s culture (they commonly would not wear any clothing) and treats the natives as inferiors or children who are there for the settler’s amusement. As well, there is no mention regarding the natives in Bradley’s journals about their right to lands and the cruel relocation of the natives west. Native displeasure is mentioned by Bradley, but it is always in the context of how it effects the settlers. For example, Bradley notes that the natives were “well pleased” with settlers until the land cultivation was started, when the natives immediately became displeased and armed themselves until the settlers returned to their boats.^[vii] Never is it commented on why they natives would be upset, but instead simply how to avoid conflict by bribing and relocating the natives. Again, the settlers showed the view of colonization and in doing so becoming superior over the native people.

Both James Cook and William Bradley show a general British ideology regarding exploring and colonization. Both men write of ways to create British prosperity and growth, whether it be by creating the image of an ideal landscape for settlement, in Cook’s case, or by illustrating British superiority over native peoples, as in the case of William Bradley. The benefit to the native people is not regarded, and by excluding this crucial aspect of colonization, Cook and Bradley exemplify the view that Australia was, aside from a penal colony, an opportunity for mercantilistic exploitation and individual growth.

Bibliography

Bradley, William. William Bradley Journal: A Voyage to New South Wales. Sydney:  University of Sydney Library, 2005

Cook, James. Cook’s Description of Places, New Holland. 2004. Available from South Seas, <http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook_remarks/contents.html> (January 28, 2010)

Dampier, William. A New Voyage Round the World, Volume 1. J Knapton, 1699

Phillip, Arthur. The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay. Echo Library, 2006

^[ii] William Dampier, A New Voyage Round the World, Volume 1, (J. Knapton, 1699) 99

^[iii] James Cook, http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ss-jrnl-cook_remarks-083 (accessed January 28, 2010

^[iv] James Cook, http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ss-jrnl-cook_remarks-089 (accessed January 28, 2010

^[v] Arthur Phillips, The Voyage of Governor Arthur Phillips to Botany Bay, (Echo Library, 2006) 26

^[vi] William Bradley, William Bradley, Journal: A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786 – May 1792 (University of Sydney Library, 2005) 59

^[vii] William Bradley, 59

Cook and Banks’ observations have a basis in economic gain and consideration for investment opportunities. Cook observes the country to be in a “pure state of Nature, the Industry of Man has had nothing to do with any part of it.”[i] The prospect of development is clearly forefront in his mind and this sentence implies that this land is ripe for exploitation. It is unsullied and pristine, abundant in natural resources that have been left basically undisturbed by the natives who have made no attempt to reap the full potential benefits of the land. Banks critiques them further regarding their manufacturing, basically noting there is little but for canoe and weapon creation.[ii] Their notions of a prosperous economy are very disconnected from the natives’ sustainable system of living off the land. They have been raised in a society where possessions equal status and the natives have few.

They also have none of the lucrative trading ventures that had built the British Empire. Cook states that the natives, “have no Commerce with their neighbours.”1 Besides not being entirely accurate, this is once again an economic observation and no doubt a source of derision coming from explorers who have trade as a basis behind their existence and funding. The possibility of trade, other than the odd little trinket, is not considered, for it appears clear to the Europeans that these people have no silks or spices to offer and the land is plainly the richest possibility, with vast acreage and a favourable climate. These overall observations are stemming from a superior attitude coming from their lofty position as the explorers and observers for a rich and massive empire. The attitudes of the reports, however, are not entirely identical in their Eurocentric worldview.

When their writings are compared, Cook seems to have more respect for the natives in general than Banks. Cook calls them an, “inoffensive race, no ways inclinable to cruelty”¹ and notes a number of significant achievements they made despite their limited resources. It appears the notions of the “noble savage” have taken root with him. Banks has less of this idea of nobility than Cook and there is an overall arrogant air to his writing. He equates them below even North American natives (clearly showing the respect he has for another native group), writing, “I do not remember to have read of any inland nation who did not cultivate the ground more or less, even the North Americans who were so well versd in having sowd their Maize.”² His contempt is clear; that he considers them to be the lowliest people he has ever heard of is unmistakably shown by this quote. In another reference in his account where he states that he believes they have the worst houses in world.² These rather extreme assumptions, given there is no possible manner by which he could have observed and compared all the agricultural and housing systems in the world, display his willingness to label them unfairly and without basis. Prejudices and racial undertones plainly underlie his comments.

When Cook notes they were a very, “wretched people  . . . but in reality they are far happier than we Europeans; being wholly unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary conveniences so much sought after in Europe, they covet not,”¹ he appears to almost envy them for this lack of obsession with material culture, even if they lead pitiful—to British standards—lives. In this case, Banks agrees, “happy people, content with little nay almost nothing”² and, “from them appear how small are the real wants of human nature.”2  But while he does acknowledge them to be happy, he makes it appear that it is only out of ignorance and due to the fact that they are not intelligent enough to realize what the “real” wants of people are. He appears to believe that they should know that there is more to life than simply surviving. They should also be expanding their knowledge, developing crop systems, manufacturing, and creating a civilization.² When Banks actually manages to compliment them, writing, “they never once attempted to take any thing in a clandestine manner; whatever they wanted they openly asked for,”² he has to clarify and note that it appeared to him that it was due to “much indifference”²—they simply did not care one way or another—that was the reason behind their lack of thievery. Even this simple lack of caring for whether or not they gained some new possessions seems to be disdainful, as if he believes they should be seeking to acquire the many amazing and useful objects the expedition and the British in general can offer but are, once again, too ignorant and backward to even realize it.

Other side comments he makes that reveal his haughty and scornful attitude include his observation that they are a, “very pusillanimous people”², and, “so compleatly coverd with dirt, which seemd to have to their hides from the day of their birth without their once having attemptd to remove it.”² He is holding them to a European standard of hygiene of which they have no concept. Bathing might not be possible given their environment and perhaps staying dirty helps block the sun or has other unknown benefits. Bathing and cleaning are apparently not a priority for the natives of Australia like they are for the Europeans, and holding them to a foreign standard is simply ridiculous, revealing Banks’ shallowness. The comment about their birth is a wild presumption on his part that once again shows his disdain and contempt for them. In general, his comments when it comes to the natives of Australia seem to stem from a general attitude of pompousness and his belief in European, and particularly British superiority, which Cook has to a lesser degree.

Both Cook and Banks are viewing the natives of the land they are observing from a vastly different perspective. They are coming from an entirely different realm of existence, one that is hardly capable of understanding, or wanting to understand, the lives and traditions of the natives they encounter. They have been raised in a society that promoted above all else the capitalist way—the unquenchable thirst for more money and its companion – constant expansion. However, respect and some realization of the native’s accomplishments can still be assigned to them and Cook manages to do so to some degree. Banks, on the other hand, is willing to allot them little and his observations are shrouded with condescension. These explorers were coming from a society where the ultimate goal of their culture was the acquiring of wealth and material possessions and since the natives were people greatly lacking in possessions and did not even have a monetary system, there were overwhelmingly dissimilar objectives and aspirations.

[ii] Banks, Joseph. The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks, 1768-1771. <http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ss-jrnl-banks_remarks.html> Jan. 25/2010.

Bibliography:

Banks, Joseph. The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks, 1768-1771. <http://nla.gov.au/nla.cs-ss-jrnl-banks_remarks.html> Jan. 25/2010.

Briscoe, Gordon. 1993. “Aboriginal Australian Identity: the historiography of relations between indigenous ethnic groups and other Australians, 1788 to 1988.” History Workshop Journal 36: 133-161.

Cook, James. James Cook’s Journal of Remarkable Occurrences aboard His Majesty’s Bark Endeavour 1768-1771. <http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook_remarks.html> Jan. 25/2010.

In the late 1700′s, England was faced with a difficult and significant social issue, specifically where to send their convicts.  Jails were overflowing and diseases were rampant throughtout; the solutions available at at the time were not particularly effective or practical.  One of the solutions to resolve the issue of the overcrowded jails was a sentence of transportation to the colonies.  However, this soon became impossible as after the American Revolution, convicts were no longer permitted to  land on American soil (Gillen, 742).  Alternatives had to be sought before the problem became even worse.  Sending these convicts to Botany Bay was an option that was considered  in 1779 (Gillen, 743).  Botany Bay seemed to possess many of the qualities that would be beneficial to a young colony: good climate, land with soil that was rich enough for agriculture, easy access to fresh water, as well as edible plants.  In addition to this there existed a variety of natural resources such as timber, which could be very valuable.  However according to Gillen, the availability of these resources was not a major focus during plans for settlement.  The plan to set up a convict colony at Botany Bay was initially disregarded:  “In 1784 and 1785, as in 1779, government was not at all interested in Botany Bay, in spite of the glowing reports it had received…” (Gillen, 748).

Several other options existed at the time such as sending prisoners to Africa.  This transportation to Africa was not generally considered to be a viable option as many prisoners died and those who survived were unable to participate in trade and employment. The harsh and vastly different climate was considered to have played an important role in these struggles, whereby “the of 746 persons sent to Africa in the eleven years between 1755 and 1766, 344 had died, 271 had been discharged or deserted, and 141 remained unaccounted for”(Gillen, 754).  Looking for another solution the British government made a request to the Portuguese Queen asking permission to transport their convicts to Portugal’s colonies, but this request was rejected by the Portuguese crown in 1784 (Gillen, 754).  After these series of failures, Botany Bay was finally considered as a location for establishing a penal colony, seemingly as a last resort. Gillen implies that this colonization was strictly transport related, having nothing to do with exploiting the resources available at Botany Bay.  This argument could be validated by the fact that it had taken the British government such a long period of time to finally decide to create a convict colony in Botany Bay, if they had been geniunely interested the government would have ensured swift occupation of the land.  As well, no provisions were sent by the goverment to ensure the exploitation of resources available.  There were no scientific inquiries made and no experts were sent to examine the area: “‘I am without one Botanist, or even an intelligent Gardener in the Colony’ Phillip wrote…” (Gillen, 763).  Additionally, prisoners were sent out regardless of their skill or previous experience working with flax or hemp(Gillen, 764).  Not only does this illustrate the lack of desire on the part of the England  to engage in hemp  and flax cultivation, but it highlights the significance of  removing all possible convicts.  The focus seemed to be, for the vast majority, on ridding England of many of its prisoners and alleviating pressure on the already overcrowded prisons.

Another factor that demonstrates the lack of interest in resources was that there were no government announcements regarding the presence of useful and profitable resources, “simply an announcement that the convict problem was at last about to be solved”(Gillen, 755).  Additionally, “…a paragraph about the advantages of flax and timber from the intended settlement was marked as having been omitted from the letter as sent” (Gillen, 760) indicating that it was not vital information.  The amount of flax and hemp that was eventually cultivated would not have been sufficient enough in quantity to found a colony based solely on the finances generated from cultivation.

Frost argues that the British government was “clearly interested in Botany Bay” (Frost, 311), implying that this interest was absolute when we know it is not.  Gillen did not deny that there was interest in Botany Bay, simply that there was not enough interest, based on the fact that the British government attempted to find other locations for transport when the option to settle in Botany Bay always existed.  Frost states that the government: “To the best of their knowledge, they planned an unusual and difficult venture carefully” (Frost, 316) but does not offer much detail as to what exactly they did to plan this venture nor does he provide any information as to what their knowledge was as there was not much evidence of any real scientific research being done in the area.  The very fact that the aforementioned available resources were simply not used is evidence enough to prove that they were not the primary motivation for settlement.  The first ships arriving at Botany Bay carried: “9 hackles for flax; 9 hackle pins; 3 flax-dresser brushes; 1 machine for dressing flax, with iron work & brushes; 1 loom for weaving canvas”(Frost, 323).  Although this demonstrates that some supplies were sent, these evidently would not be enough to support an enitre industry.  It  does prove that there was  minimal interest in the flax available, however not enough to justify settlement.

Although establishing a convict colony may have been the primary reason for settling in Botany Bay, the presence of resources available was certainly an additional asset. The fact that minimal effort was put into exploiting these resources demonstrates their secondary importance. Botany Bay was chosen because it was one of, if not the only option left available to a desperate government.

The concepts of the noble and ignoble savage shaped the European perception of the aborigines of Australia. I will demonstrate how Captain James Cook’s journal from the 1768 voyage of the Endeavour characterizes the aborigines as noble savages, whereas Sir Joseph Bank’s journal, from the same voyage, characterizes the aborigines as ignoble savages. I will also briefly explain why Banks may have gravitated to the concept of the ignoble savage.

Captain Cook’s description of the aborigines as noble savages is evident throughout his journal; more specifically, in his discussion of the nakedness of the aborigines, their physical characteristics and their general disposition, Cook demonstrates his inclination to consider the aborigines as noble savages.

Firstly, Cook repeatedly makes remarks concerning the nakedness of the aborigines. In the construction of the concept of the savage (noble or ignoble), one of the indicators of an uncivilized society is nakedness.[ii] Cook proclaims that the aborigines are always naked— truly in their natural state. “No sort of Cloathing or Ornaments were ever seen by any of us upon any one of them, or in or about any of their Hutts; from which I conclude that they never wear any.”[iii] Cook is particularly interested in the nakedness of the women stating, “… even the woman had nothing to cover her nudities.”[iv] Days later in his journal he remarks, “… even those parts which I always before now thought Nature would have taught a woman to conceal were uncovered.”[v] It is clear that Cook believes that the aborigines are governed solely by the forces of nature, forces which he acknowledges he does not fully understand. Another indicative element of the savage was sexual freedom or promiscuity.[vi] The exposure of the aborigine women was linked to sexual freedom by European thinkers, who associated sexual modesty with the covering of the female body.

After an extended encounter with the aborigines, Cook describes their physical characteristics stating that “their features were far from being disagreeable; their Voices were soft and Tunable…”[vii] Regarding their disposition, Cook minimizes the significance of the rare violent encounters that occurred between the aborigines and his shipmates, choosing to describe the aborigines in a positive light. “I do not look upon them to be a warlike people; on the contrary, I think them a Timerous and inoffensive race, no ways inclined to Cruelty, as appear’d from their behaviour to one of our people in Endeavour River…”[viii] Cook pronounces that the aborigines “are far more happier than we Europeans”.[ix] According to Cook, they live in a state of “Tranquility” by virtue of their subsistence or ‘natural’ existence.[x] Cook, by providing commentary on the nakedness of the aborigines, their appearance, and their disposition, portrays the Aborigines as noble savages. In Banks’ journal, which provides a commentary and discussion of the same events and elements of aborigine society as Cook’s journal, we see a contrasting viewpoint— the characterization of the aborigine as the ignoble savage.

Firstly, the accounts of Cooks and Banks contrast in the description of the aborigines’ voices. As mentioned above, Cook describes their voices as “soft and Tunable”, whereas Banks describes them as “shrill and effeminate”.[xi] This may seem like a minor point of contrast, but it does have significance. Describing the qualities of a voice is a very subjective assessment. We clearly see each author’s bias in their descriptions— Cook’s propensity to portray the aborigines positively and Banks’ propensity to do the opposite.

Secondly, the contrasting views of Banks and Cook are apparent in their accounts of the skirmish between the crew of the Endeavour and the aborigines when Cook attempted to land in Botany Bay. In Cook’s account, the events are described relatively objectively— without any attempt to characterize the aborigines. He simply states that two aborigine men “ seem’d resolved to oppose” the landing of the ship, and goes on to plainly describe the firing of three muskets by his men, and the throwing of a stone and two darts by the aborigines.[xii] Banks, however, portrays the aborigines as violent/warlike in this encounter. In Banks’ journal the aborigines are not just “oppos[ing]” the landing of the ship; they are “threatening and menacing with their pikes and swords… brandishing their crooked weapons at us…”[xiii] In further contrast to Cook, who declares that the aborigines are anything but warlike, Banks hypothesizes that continued warring between aboriginal groups could be responsible for, what was thought to be, an unusually small population. Banks supports this hypothesis by claiming that the aborigines had a surplus of weapons made from Stingray barbs, which were designed for combat, not hunting.[xiv]

Thirdly, land cultivation, which has been considered a defining mark of civilization, is discussed by both Cook and Banks. Cook plainly states that the aborigines do not cultivate the land, “… we never saw one Inch of Cultivated Land in the whole Country”[xv] but he does not provide an interpretation of what this fact indicates about these hunter-gatherers. Banks, however, suggests that those who do not engage in land cultivation “hold a rank little superior to that of monkies.”[xvi]

Lastly, Banks, like Cook, addresses the aborigines’ nakedness, but adds his own negative analysis, making an allusion to the theory of polygenesis. He states that the aborigines are so shameless in their nakedness that it is as if “they had not been the children of Parents who eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.”[xvii]

I have illustrated that Banks provides a strong characterization of the aborigines as ignoble savages; however, Banks does make one particular statement that is consistent with Cook’s noble savage characterization: “ Thus live these I had almost said happy people, content with little nay almost nothing…”[xviii] This statement, which recognizes the contentment of the aborigines, must be acknowledged but cannot negate the rest of Banks’ journal. As indicated by Borboom, both concepts (the noble and ignoble savage) can appear at the same time within the same person.[xix]

An entire essay might by written explaining why Banks embraces the concept of the ignoble savage, but I will address possible explanations only briefly. Banks was an advocate for the colonization of Australia (Gillen 743).[xx] Those who supported colonization used the concept of the ignoble savage in justifying colonialism. From the perspective of those who ascribed to the concept of the ignoble savage, European colonization would mark an improvement in the cruel and primitive existence of native groups. The concept of the ignoble savage allowed Europeans to establish colonies without considering the possibility of disturbing preexisting, functional societies.

Further, Banks is likely to have dismissed the concept of the noble savage, leading him to embrace the concept of the ignoble savage. The concept of the noble savage flourished during the age of enlightenment (the 18^th century), partly due to the work of Rousseau.[xxi] In his 1750 publication, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences and 1755 publication, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, Rousseau argues that humans are naturally good and that civilization is responsible for corrupting humans and turning them towards evil. Included in Rousseau’s criticism of civilization is a criticism of science.[xxii] Banks, a devoted botanist/scientist, would be opposed to a concept that questioned the value of scientific achievement.

Captain James Cook and Sir Joseph Banks encountered the aborigines of Australia during the 1768-1771 voyage of the Endeavour. In their respective journals, Cook and Banks address many of the same features of aborigine society (the nakedness of the aborigines, the absence of the practice of land cultivation and the aborigines’ general disposition) but provide contrasting views of these societal features. Cook characterizes the aborigines as noble savages. Banks characterizes the aborigines as ignoble savages, possibly for reasons I have briefly discussed.

Bibliography

Banks, J., arranged by B.P. Sandford. (1998). The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph

Banks, 1768-1771. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from SETIS Digital Resources. http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/setis/id/p00021.

Borsboom, A. (1988). The Savage In European Social Thought: A Prelude To The

Conceptualization Of The Divergent Peoples and Cultures Of Australia and Oceania. KILTV, 4, 419-432.

Cook, B. (Nov. 25, 2009). HIS109 Class Lecture: Rousseau and the Roots of Revolution.

Cook, J. (1893). Captain Cook’s Journal During His First Voyage Round The World In

H.M. Bark “Endeavour” 1768-71. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from

http://freeread.com.au/ebooks/e00043.html.

Gillen, M. (1982, Oct.). The Botany Bay Decision: 1786: convicts, not empire. The

English Historical Review, 97(385), 740-766.

Endnotes

Conceptualization Of The Divergent Peoples and Cultures Of Australia and Oceania, KILTV, 1988, 419.

[ii] Ibid, 420.

[iii] James Cook, Captain Cook’s Journal During His First Voyage Round The World In

H.M. Bark “Endeavour” 1768-71.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ad Borsboom, The Savage In European Social Thought: A Prelude To The

Conceptualization Of The Divergent Peoples and Cultures Of Australia and Oceania, KILTV, 1988, 419.

[vii] James Cook, Captain Cook’s Journal During His First Voyage Round The World In

H.M. Bark “Endeavour” 1768-71.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Joseph Banks arranged by B.P. Sandford, The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph

Banks, 1768-1771.

[xii] James Cook, Captain Cook’s Journal During His First Voyage Round The World In

H.M. Bark “Endeavour” 1768-71.

[xiii] Joseph Banks arranged by B.P. Sandford, The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph

Banks, 1768-1771.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] James Cook, Captain Cook’s Journal During His First Voyage Round The World In

H.M. Bark “Endeavour” 1768-71.

[xvi] Joseph Banks arranged by B.P. Sandford, The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph

Banks, 1768-1771.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Ad Borsboom, The Savage In European Social Thought: A Prelude To The

Conceptualization Of The Divergent Peoples and Cultures Of Australia and Oceania, KILTV, 1988, 428.

[xx] Mollie Gillen, The Botany Bay Decision: 1786: convicts, not empire, The

English Historical Review, 1982, 743.

[xxi] Brandon Cook, HIS109 Class Lecture: Rousseau and the Roots of Revolution, Nov. 25, 2009.

[xxii] Ibid.

According to the article by Monica Gillen, “No convict sent out on the First Fleet was chosen specifically for his knowledge of the culture or manufacture of hemp or flax (or for his skills in any other occupation for that matter.)”[i] Old Bailey records from 1785 and 1786 accurately reflect this sentiment. Governor Arthur Phillip of the First Fleet complained of the fact that he was without a single botanist or an adequate Flax-dresser in letters he wrote from Port Jackson in May of 1788.[ii] The social and occupational composition of the convicts did not appear to be a factor in their transportation to Australia, only that they were convicted criminals. Transporting convicts with no experience in a hemp or flax industry seems to suggest the purpose of their transportation as rooted in solving the problem of an overpopulated prison system, and not in exploiting available resources in Australia. This rationalization is evident in the statuses of the convicts sent abroad. The overwhelming majority of convicts sentenced to transportation in 1785 were convicted of theft or burglary and many lived in London, away from a plausible source of hemp or flax.[iii] The case of a man named John Williams accurately reflects the majority of convicts sentenced to transportation for theft.[iv] During his court proceedings, John Williams claims that his occupation is that of a sailor, and his subsequent sentencing of transportation for seven years reflects absolutely no premeditation to transport criminals with a predisposition for flax or hemp cultivation.[v] It is not just the case of John Williams that reflects this sentiment, but rather a large number of criminals convicted of theft and burglary were sentenced to transportation without any regard for seeking particular criminals with a background in flax or hemp cultivation. Individuals like William Moore, Thomas Howard, and John Watson all reflect this sentiment, as all of them were convicted of burglary in London in 1785 and sentenced to transportation to Australia for seven years and none of them came from agricultural backgrounds.[vi] The vast majority of criminals in the Old Bailey records were not transported because of their specialization in hemp or flax cultivation, but because they were criminals overcrowding the London prisons in the 1780’s. Any record of an occupation in the flax or hemp industry is not present in the Old Bailey records of 1785 or 1786 for convicts sentenced to transportation. Evidence from the Old Bailey records seem to suggest Monica Gillen’s assertion of an Australia primarily established as a convict dumping ground for Britain’s overcrowded prison system. Even in the Second Fleet, Captain Watkin Tench does not make any mention of hemp or flax-workers arriving in the June of 1790.[vii] Evidence from convict records illustrate that criminals were not sentenced to transportation specifically for their skill or ability to work with flax and hemp, but because of the crime they had committed, namely theft in the majority of cases.[viii] The purposes behind the Botany Bay decision of 1786 are further clarified through assessing Britain’s actual need for hemp and flax in the 1780’s.

The rationalization behind choosing Botany Bay as a settlement was not to exploit the available hemp or flax resources found there because Britain did not have an immediate and pressing need for these resources. Britain was not threatened with a short supply of flax or hemp as they received these exports from the various nations and colonies they had treaties with from the early 1760’s to 1800.[ix] Monica Gillen claims that a reading of the Board of Trade from 1786-1800 demonstrates little to “suggest that there was any practical or energetic pursuit of new sources of hemp.”[x] The Board of Trade was more concerned with exports and imports between Great Britain and Russia as a means to “aid negotiations for renewing the expiring commercial treaty with Russia.”[xi] Part of this commercial treaty included hemp from Russia, suggesting perhaps that the need for hemp was not as great as Alan Frost claims it was.[xii] In support of the lack of a critical need for hemp or flax is a letter from Lord Barrington to the Earl of Huntingdon in December of 1786, stating that “there is no doubt” of a treaty between Britain and Russia being renewed for the benefit of both countries.[xiii] The renewal of the treaty, which also included France, assured Britain of a reliable source of hemp.[xiv] In fact, Britain was so committed to not seeking new sources of flax or hemp and maintaining its present commercial situation that it did not include plans regarding the cultivation of flax in Botany Bay when writing to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, because they did not want to alarm him as flax was an important export for Ireland.[xv] Britain wanted to reassure the Irish Lord Lieutenant that they were not seeking new sources of flax. Hemp and flax in Australia would have only made Britain self-sufficient, an undoubtedly beneficial aim, but not one worth travestying so far abroad for when the need for hemp and flax was not immediate or critical. The lack of a pressing need for hemp and flax suggests that Port Jackson was not colonized for these reasons, but rather to receive and develop a self-subsistent penal colony. Australia’s colonization as a solution to Britain’s overcrowded prison system is further strengthened through demonstrating the lack of a development in flax or hemp cultivation subsequent to the settlement of Port Jackson.

Even after the First Fleet of ships arrived and settled Port Jackson in 1788, there seems to be little to no evidence indicating an effort to develop a proper flax or hemp industry. Not only does this suggest the lack of a pressing need for new sources of hemp and flax, but also the true purpose behind the Botany Bay decision, namely as a colony meant to receive convicts from Britain and not to develop and establish a flax or hemp industry. Governor Arthur Phillip had James Matra’s report and information from James Cook’s expedition in 1771 which should have made the First Fleet more then adequate in preparation for establishing a hemp or flax industry if that was their goal. As Monica Gillen states in her rebuttal to Alan Frost’s article, the paltry sum of tools they brought along with them was not enough to establish a flax industry.[xvi] Additionally, the First Fleet was not justified in being underprepared in light of Cook’s description of the area in 1771. Cook wrote in 1771 that “…most valuable of all, is, the Flax Plant, which grows more luxuriant than in New Zealand.”[xvii] A captain on the First Fleet, Watkin Tench does not mention the establishment of a flax industry in his first hand account but rather, the creation of farms for the sustenance of the settlement.[xviii] In 1790, when a number of ships arrived in June, Captain Tench does not mention any supplies for the establishment and cultivation of a feasible flax or hemp industry.[xix] He is more concerned with the fact that they have been resupplied with provisions for their basic sustenance, and not tools or the ability to cultivate hemp and flax.[xx] The Second Fleet should have brought more hackles and hackle-pins for flax and hemp cultivation if the goal of the penal settlement was to exploit the flax and hemp resources there. The absence of the rudimentary beginnings of a feasible flax industry suggest that this was not the main goal of the settlement, and the first settlers were more concerned with surviving and establishing themselves as successful farmers of a penal colony. Feigning to bring supplies for the cultivation of flax or hemp, the Second Fleet did remember to bring 641 new convicts.[xxi] William Bradley, another sailor on the First Fleet, makes mention of a great number of ships arriving in June and August of 1790, namely The Justinian, Lady Juliana, The Guardian, The Gorgon and The Surprise, all of which had been deployed with the purpose of providing “Provisions for the releif of the Settlement,”.[xxii] There is no mention of tools or supplies for flax cultivation, only provisions to relieve the starved colony. The first hand accounts of Watkin Tench and William Bradley both reveal the weakness in Alan Frost’s claims of Botany Bay as an imperial decision. Even if a paltry amount of tools, and a few persons thought knowledgeable with flax and hemp were sent, nothing became of it. Subsequent voyages to Port Jackson in June and August of 1790 reveal no support for establishing a flax or hemp industry.

Alan Frost’s assertion that the Botany Bay decision was made to exploit depositories of flax and hemp resources does not reflect compiled evidence. The occupational statuses of the convicts not only reveal their ineptitude in working with flax and hemp but also that the crime they had committed was more important then the occupation they held during their sentencing, indicating that theft and burglary would result in transportation to a penal colony and their experience in working with flax or hemp was unimportant. Additionally, Britain did not have a pressing and immediate need for flax or hemp and were relatively content with the commercial treaties they had with Ireland and Russia. Consequently, evidence from subsequent voyages in 1790 illustrates the lack of any rudimentary developments in establishing a flax or hemp industry. Possible preparations for flax and hemp cultivation led to no developments consequent to settling Port Jackson, suggesting Britain’s colonization of Australia as a convict dumping ground. Australia was most likely chosen as a colony because it posed a solution to the problem of Britain’s overcrowded prison system.

Endnotes

[ii] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 763.

[iii] “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” 2003.http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17850112-2-off5&div=t17850112-2#highlight (accessed January 30, 2010).

[iv] “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” 2003.http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17850112-19-off107&div=t17850112-19#highlight (accessed January 30, 2010).

[v] “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” 2003.http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17850112-19-off107&div=t17850112-19#highlight (accessed January 30, 2010).

[vi] “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” 2003.http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17850112-2-off5&div=t17850112-2#highlight (accessed January 30, 2010).

[vii] Tench,Watkin. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 1998. 38.

[viii] “The Proceedings of the Old Bailey.” 2003.http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17850112-2-off5&div=t17850112-2#highlight (accessed January 30, 2010).

[ix] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 762.

[x] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 762.

[xi] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 762.

[xii] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 763.

[xiii] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 761.

[xiv] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 761.

[xv] Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: Convicts, not Empire.” The English Historical Review 97, no. 385 (1982): 760.

[xvi] Frost, Alan. “Botany Bay: an imperial venture of the 1780s.” English Historical Review 100, no. 395 (1985): 330.

[xvii] Frost, Alan. “Botany Bay: an imperial venture of the 1780s.” English Historical Review 100, no. 395 (1985): 321.

[xviii] Tench,Watkin. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 1998. 37.

[xix] Tench,Watkin. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 1998. 38.

[xx] Tench,Watkin. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 1998. 38.

[xxi] Tench,Watkin. A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 1998. 39.

[xxii] Bradley,William. A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786-May 1792. Sydney: University of Sydney Library, 2005. 4.

The first primary account will be that of William Bradley, who wrote a journal on his expedition to New South Wales entitled A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786-May 1792.  The second will be a journal from the man who is credited with settling New South Wales, Captain James Cook.  From these two accounts, you will see that neither the natives nor the Europeans were the aggressive warriors some historians and politicians paint them to be.  That in fact, the first encounters, although at times relations were tense, saw both sides more curious than violent.  Briscoe’s piece will be used to further outline how some historians have manipulated the past in embellishment in order to muster up a sense of nationalism among the Aboriginal Australians.

Parallel to what Briscoe claims in his paper is Bradley’s account of his first engagements with the native people of Australia.  In the first record of his party encountering the natives on Sunday, January 20, 1788 where his party met them in Botany Bay, the natives were in groups of “two, three and five together” and were “frequently advancing and again retreating”.³ In this first encounter, Bradley’s party left some presents to suggest their peaceful nature towards the natives.  The natives seemed pleased with what was given to them and according to Bradley, both groups of people were mixed by Noon and enjoying one another’s company.⁴ On many occasions throughout his journal, Bradley repeats the phrase that the natives “seemed pleased with us” and that they were very friendly, suggesting they were hardly interested in armed conflict.

As time went on and months passed, it seems as though the natives did become progressively more aggravated by the European settlement.  This is exemplified in the Thursday, February 21, 1788 passage where the natives on Botany Bay “are exceedingly troublesome there & that wherever they meet an unarmed Man they attack him”⁵, and on a few occasions such as on March 9, 1788, the natives have stolen articles of clothes and other items from the Europeans.  These minor skirmishes suggest that the natives were growing more uncomfortable with the European presence on their land and although violence did occur on behalf of the natives, it id not lead to a full out massacre or war.  What this serves to illustrate is that just like in any other civilization there will be crime and that Australia was no exception.

Even with these very few instances of theft and minor cases of violence, the experience between the Europeans and the Aboriginal Australians was a peaceful and pleasant one.  The natives did show some dissatisfaction in the European presence, but not to the extent that some counts of the experience may have the reader believe.  Through Bradley’s experience the actions of the Aboriginal Australians seems to have been more on the side of friendship and kindness rather than displeasure and hate.

In looking at Cook’s journal, you see more of the same kind of experiences.  On many occasions Cook cites the timidity of the natives.  Numerous entries see Cook or his crew make attempts at contacting the natives by offering them gifts, as they did on April 30, 1770.⁶ Even in early instances where the aboriginals did end up remaining and followed members of Cook’s crew, they ensured that a safe distance was between themselves and the Europeans.⁷

The fact that the aboriginals reacted in such a way to Cook and his men suggests that they were coy and fearful about initial contact.  Their decision not to take arms against the Europeans demonstrates that they were not a war mongering people and that instead they were more peaceful and perhaps even curious about these newcomers.  In a way it suggests the aboriginal Australians openness to learn about these Europeans and their lifestyles, rather than the need to destroy them.

Like Bradley, Cook also mentions some instances of minor violence towards the Europeans from the natives.  On April 29, 1770, Cook writes about the natives throwing darts, presumably poisonous, and that he had fired three shots from his gun back at them to scare them off.  But this violence is on a significantly small scale as there appear to only be two aboriginal men involved.⁸ This again suggests that the violence was not as large as some historians and Australian politicians may lead some to believe and that in fact the encounter was a more civilized experience.

On of the main reasons why it seems fallacious that these encounters were anything but peaceful is due to the size and organization of the aboriginal communities the Europeans encountered.  Both journal accounts mention the small numbers of the native communities which would not allow them to conjure up large enough numbers to wage a war.  This means that they were not socially organized for large scale battles.  As mentioned previously, Bradley states that the natives travelled in groups of 10 to 20, while the Cook incident and other entries in his journal suggest that native groups travelled in even smaller amounts of numbers.  With such small numbers they posed no real threat to any advancing people with numbers that amounted to more than a few dozen, making the possibility of the natives being any sort of aggressive population.

Taking these two journals into account and looking at Briscoe’s article, it is evident that the Aboriginal Australians were in fact a very peaceful and timid group of people.  Their receptiveness of the Europeans does a lot to tell us how the natives functioned as a people and nothing that comes out of Bradley’s or Cook’s encounters with the natives suggests that they were anything but civil towards the Europeans.  As mentioned there were unfortunate instances where violence did take place against the Europeans, but crime occurs in every society in every civilization, no matter how primitive or advanced that society may be.  So this does not signify that the natives were a violent society, just that they were human.  The fact that these journals were written almost two decades apart, and on either spectrum of the time period being discussed, suggests that it was not only the initial contact that saw good relations between the Europeans and natives, but that this peace was lasting.  This proves that the European encounters with the natives from 1770-1790 was not based on violence and war, but was in fact very peaceful.

Endnotes

1. Briscoe, Gordon, “Aboriginal Australian Identity: The Historiography of relations between Indigenous Ethnic Groups and other Australians, 1788-1988” from History Workshop Journal, Oxford Press, 1993, p 136
2. Ibid, p 136
   1. Bradley, William.  “A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786 – May 1792.”  William Bradley journal: A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786 – May 1792.  The University of Sydney Australia.  29 January 2010, Sunday, January 20, 1788
   2. Ibid, Sunday, January 20, 1788
   3. Ibid, Thursday, February 21, 1788
      1. Cook, James.  “Captain Cook’s Journal During the First Voyage Round the World made in H.M. bark “Endeavour”.”  Journals of Australian Land and Sea Explorers and Discoverers.  7 May 2007., Monday, April 30, 1770
      2. Ibid, Wednesday, May 2, 1770
      3. Ibid, Sunday, April 29, 1770

Bibliography

1. Bradley, William.  “A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786 – May 1792.”  William Bradley journal: A Voyage to New South Wales, December 1786 – May 1792.  The University of Sydney Australia.  Retrieved 29 January 2010 from <http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/pubotbin/toccer-new?id=brajour.sgml&images=&data=/usr/ot&tag=explorers&part=1&division=div>

1. Briscoe, Gordon, “Aboriginal Australian Identity: The Historiography of relations between Indigenous Ethnic Groups and other Australians, 1788-1988” from History Workshop Journal, Oxford Press, 1993

1. 3. Cook, James.  “Captain Cook’s Journal During the First Voyage Round the World made in H.M. bark “Endeavour”.”  Journals of Australian Land and Sea Explorers and Discoverers.  7 May 2007.  Project Gutenberg Australia.  Retrieved 28 January 2010 from <http://freeread.com.au/ebooks/e00043.html>

Most famously celebrated for his South Pacific land discoveries, and enhancement of navigational and cartographic methods, the journals and descriptions of New Holland by Cook would influence Britain’s decision to inhabit Botany Bay. Captain Cook declares throughout his journals that New South Wales would be suitable for inhabitation[i]. This is supported by his numerous descriptions of edible plant and animal species rather than available timber or other potential naval resources. Cook specifically describes the potential cultivation of the wild roots and vegetables as well as edible quadrupeds’, birds and fish. Following his detailed description of the flora and fauna, Cook infers that this continent would sustain a populace due to its ability to produce foodstuffs, “In this Extensive Country it can never be doubted but what most sorts of Grain, Fruits, Roots of every kind would flourish here were they once brought hither, planted and cultivated by the hand of Industry; and here are Provender for more Cattle at all seasons of the year than ever can be brought into this Country[ii].”  He also imparts his knowledge regarding the appropriate site for settlement, stating that Botany Bay would provide adequate resources and protection for those industrious enough to properly cultivate the land, “The Coast of this Country, at least so much of it as lays to the Northward of 25° of Latitude, abounds with a great Number of fine bays and Harbours, which are shelter’d from all Winds[iii].”  In addition, it is difficult to believe that according to Alan Frost, New Holland was chosen partly because of its abundance in timber and ability to produce flax. This is due to the fact that Cook’s journals promptly degrade the quality of timber found in New Holland, and do not at all mention the potential cultivation of flax[iv]. “The woods do not produce any great variety of Trees, there are only 2 or 3 sorts that can be could_^^call’d Timber; the largest is the Gum Tree which growes all over the Country, the Wood of this Tree is too hard and ponderous for most common uses.[v]” Thus is can be inferred through his positive observations of edible flora and fauna, selection of a possible settlement site, and his dismissal of timber and flax cultivation, that Captain James Cook was searching for a potential settlement location.

Similarly, Sir Joseph Banks, a botanist aboard Captain Cook’s ship Endeavour, would describe in detail the flora, fauna, landscape, and native inhabitants of New Holland.  Banks had strongly advocated Botany Bay as a potential solution to England’s penal issues since he reported his discoveries in 1771[vi].  Like Captain Cook, Banks appears to be creating an image of paradise, lush with vegetation and fertile soil, suitable for European inhabitation, rather than an imperial outpost. He thoroughly illustrates the Eurocentric lens which tints his view of the Aboriginals as an ignorant and uncivilized. He infers that they do not possess the knowledge to properly cultivate land with such potential, which explains their reliance on ocean game. “The Sea has I beleive been universaly found to be the cheif source of supplys to Indians ignorant of the arts of cultivation.[vii]”  He continues to suggest that if this land were to be properly cultivated by civilized Europeans, there is no reason why it should not flourish, “Whatever may be the reason of this want of People is dificult to guess, unless perhaps the Barreness of the Soil and scarcity of fresh water; but why mankind should not increase here as fast as in other places unless their small tribes have frequent wars in which many are destroyd.[viii]”  By suggesting the immense potential of New Holland as a possible thriving settlement, the removal of land from the Aboriginals is acceptable and justified, and is no longer a barricade for the development of a penal colony. Thus it can be surmised that Joseph Banks through his condescending description of the Aboriginals, unwittingly advocates the creation of a British colony in Botany Bay.

In an effort to support Gillen’s argument, it is also necessary to examine the second fleet to New South Wales, commanded by Governor Arthur Phillip in order to ascertain whether its purpose was to create a penal colony, or cultivate and manufacture timber and flax. Throughout the first chapter of his journal, Phillip reiterates the purpose of the journey in paragraphs five through ten, “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[ix].” In addition it can be also assumed that due to the lack of flax cultivation machinery and personnel, the First Fleet, much like Captain Cooks voyage was dispatched solely to create a penal colony. Gillen argues, “No scientific expedition was planned to accompany or to precede the fleet:  No Navy experts were sent, or botanists, or any other officials who might experiment in hemp culture or supervise the development of such an industry…“No person went who was qualified in any aspect of flax culture or manufacture, nor any of the necessary machinery.[x]” These facts consequently correspond with Arthur Phillip’s account of the First Fleet’s voyage to Botany Bay. Phillip compiles a comprehensive list of male and female convicts, specific military personnel and marine officials as well as their families aboard each vessel[xi]. Had there been botanists, naval experts or professional flax laborers aboard the fleet, Phillip would have surely included such skilled members in his meticulous inventory. However, it can be inferred that due to the lack of mention of these skilled laborers and/or intellectuals, the cultivation of flax and timber was not a priority, thus validating the convict settlement motive for colonizing Botany Bay.

However plausible the accounts by these three gentlemen may appear, scholars will continue to debate the authentic motive for the development of the penal colony in New South Wales. Nevertheless, Captain James Cook convincingly describes New Holland as abundant in flora and fauna which could sustain a larger population and settlement, rather than a convenient and exclusive timber and flax manufacturing location. Similarly, Sir Joseph Banks’ description of the ignorant and uncivilized Aboriginals, conveys the implicit message that New Holland is ripe for settlement, and it will not be impeded upon by the Aboriginal tribes. Banks had strongly advocated Botany Bay as a potential solution to England’s penal issues since he reported his discoveries in 1771[xii].  Thirdly, Governor Arthur Phillip’s account of his voyage to Botany Bay indicates that the voyage of the First Fleet was completed with the intent to cultivate a penal settlement due to a lack of timber and flax manufacturing material and personnel. In conclusion, aside from this ongoing scholarly debate, the impact of these journals and accounts would continue to influence European and Australian history alike.

Bibliography

Banks, Joseph. “The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks, 1768-1771.” 1771. South Sea Voyaging Accounts. 28 January 2010             <http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/banks_remarks/contents.html>.

Cook, James. “James Cook’s Journal of Remarkable Occurrences aboard His Majesty’s Bark             Endeavour, 1768-1771.” 1771. South Seas Voyaging. 27 January 2010             <http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook_remarks/080.html>.

Frost, Alan. “Botany Bay: an imperial venture of the 1780s.” English Historical Review (1985):             309-330.

Gillen, Mollie. “The Botany Bay Decision, 1786: convicts, not empire.” English Historical Review (1982): 740-766.

Phillip, Arthur. “The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay.” 1789. Australian Exploration and Early Settlement. 27 January 2010 <http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/pubotbin/toccer-            new?id=phivoya.sgml&images=&data=/usr/ot&tag=explorers&part=2&division=div1>.

.

[ii] (Cook) pg 89

[iii] Ibid pg 89

[iv] (Frost) pg 327

[v] (Cook) pg 80

[vi] (Banks)

[vii] Ibid

[viii] Ibid

[ix] (Phillip)

[x] (Gillen) pg 763

[xi] (Phillip)

[xii] (Banks)