Why examination reform is essential

Is the time right for a debate on the character of the examination system at 16+?  If the YouGov survey in today’s Sunday Times is indicative of the public’s attitude, the answer is an unequivocal yes.  Half of those surveyed thought a return to O Level was a good idea compared to 32% who supported the existing GCSE.  The response to should there be one national examination board was even clearer with an overwhelming majority in favour of this step.  So it appears that, despite the way in which the debate was initiated, Michael Gove has hit a raw nerve in public opinion and the public popularity for the proposal should be sufficient to catapult it forward. 

Do we need an examination system with greater rigour?  Well, yes as many students leave school at 16+ knowing very little and not knowing how to apply the little that they do know. The problem lies with the notion of a return to O Levels.  You simply can’t turn the clock back to what many people see as a golden age.  Were O Levels and CSEs that good?  Having taught both I’m not convinced.  Both encouraged the assimilation of knowledge but did little to develop effective thinking and passing examinations depended less on critical thinking than the ability of regurgitate factual materials.  GCSEs, by contrast, attempted, but with limited success, to develop thinking and research skills with a consequent dilution and fragmentation of factual material.  So what we need is an examination system that successfully combines the development of critical thinking and research and communication skills with coherent and ideally holistic factual content.  In History, this means courses that meld What? Why? and How? with an understanding of historiography and analysis of sources that are tested through extended writing based on research, essays and source analysis within a framework of critical thinking weighted 30 per cent, 40 per cent and 30 per cent.  Three elements: the first teacher-assessed and moderated more rigorously than at present; the second and third elements through written examinations at the end of the course.  I would also be inclined to apply the same criteria to Advanced Level increasing the number of written examinations to three (two essay papers and one source paper) against at the end of the course ending the need for AS and modular structures.  This would allow students at both 16+ and 18+ to take courses unhindered by the disruptive nature of modular courses (all that time spent preparing for and doing examinations and resits) and would allow teachers to teach the subject unfettered in the knowledge that the exams would be at the end.  That would be really liberating and would allow the development of detailed understanding of subjects that is impossible within a modular system.

 

The question is whether we need to go back to two qualifications at 16+ as existed before 1987.  I’m inclined not to.  It was one of my most difficult tasks to decide whether students should do O Level or CSE and there was no guarantee that I’d get it right.  The problem was that once a decision had been made it was difficult to move from O Level to CSE and vice versa.  In addition, parents are more empowered educationally today than they were in the 1970s and 1980s when I remember having fairly ferocious discussions with parents about my decisions.  Having two qualifications could well damage the often tenuous relationships between teachers and parents who now see themselves rather more as consumers than was the case in the past.  Going back to parallel qualifications at 16+ could well raise more problems than it solves.  The solution lies in something that has already been tried: tiered examinations.  This has the advantage of leaving the final decision on which tier is entered until the last moment and the decision will be based on quantifiable evidence of performance during a course.  This will not entirely negate parental objections but at least teachers will have evidence to support their decisions that can be presented to parents to justify their choices. 

As for a single national examination board that the survey strongly favoured, this is now essential.  It will remove the iniquitous system of deciding to do examination board A’s courses because the pass rate appears to be better and would also ensure that standards could be uniformly applied (in so-far as they can ever be uniformly applied).  The existing examination boards would simply become regional deliverers of the national board’s courses responsible for administration and marking under national supervision in their particular region. 

The past is a distant land

There is the past and there is history and in-between there lies the historian though this is no longer simply the preserve of historians whatever academe suggests. The argument goes as follows. People in the past left traces, wittingly or unwittingly, of their lives and experiences in the form of sources material that historians trawl to obtain the evidence that forms the foundations on which they built their construction, reconstruction or deconstruction of the past. The aim in this process is to get ‘as close’ as possible to narrating and explaining what actually happened in the past and, as a result, to establish some sort of true meaning of the past.  Others suggest that historians are story-tellers involved in an essentially literary activity interrogating texts to construct their view of the past.  Let me be clear, I do not see myself as a historian in a postmodernist context, not because I object to the postmodernist perspective even though it is frequently expressed in language that hides more than it reveals but because I am not convinced that postmodernism had added much that is valuable to the practical ‘craft of history’.  Few if any historians today would claim that their work is the definitive answer or that they are doing more than expressing their own view of what happened in the past.  They do not seek ‘the truth’ but merely seek to explain what happened recognising that their explanation will itself be subject to review and revision by others.  In that respect we are perhaps all postmodernists!

The problem it seems to me lies less in what historians do but their failure to address the issue of what the past actually is.  At one level, the past never actually existed.  People do not live in the past, they live in their presents with all the chaos that this implies.  Neither did people in the past live in history; they did not spent their lives thinking what the causes and consequences of their actions and thoughts would be.  Historians impose rationality on lives that are generally far from rational or logical.  It is historians who ‘make’ history with all the ambiguity that this implies and we interrogate history to provide an explanation for our presents…what Marwick called ‘history as a social necessity’.  Our views of our presents are partial and generally partisan in some form or another and so were people who lived a hundred years ago in their own presents and so on.  We/they cannot/could not ‘know’ that our actions could/did have particular consequences.  We look back to our pasts through the refracting mirror of our presents and our perceived (and invariably wrong) perceptions of our possible futures.  Unlike the newspaper announcing that next week’s fortune-tellers conference is cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances, our hindsight and foresight are limited by our understanding or our presents.  The past may well by a distant land but so are/were our/their presents. 

Birth, death and taxes

The chapter on tax rebellion in my forthcoming Resistance and Rebellion in the British Empire, 1600-1980,  begins in the following way:

‘In late 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. [1]

….From when taxes were first levied, people have found ways to evade paying for reasons that have been honourable, ideological, greedy and selfish. People have evaded taxes illegally, some have resisted paying taxes and others have simply refused. Taxation is almost by definition unfair. It is imposed on people by government generally without consultation and is frequently used to pay for things of which people do not approve or do not need. Getting the level of taxation in society right, or at least politically acceptable, has always been a problem for government. If the level of taxation is set too low then it may have insufficient funds to rule effectively with the likelihood of the same consequences as setting taxes too high; anger, discontent and even resistance. ‘

How many of us if asked whether we would like to pay less tax would say no!  How many of us if asked whether we would like to pay less tax in a scheme recognised by HMRC would say no!  Most of us of course have no option but to pay our taxes since we cannot afford the fees paid by tax revenue experts who know the vagaries of taxation law to do this.  But given the option, most of us would and it’s hypocritical to say we wouldn’t.  Let us be clear, the amount of tax we pay is a legal question and if we use taxation law to avoid paying taxation that is legally acceptable.  But is it morally acceptable or more accurately should taxation be subject to moral as well as legal rules?  The past few years have seen the growth of moral pressure on individuals and institutions to ensure that they do not have unacceptably high levels of income or pay their ‘right’ level of taxation.  Should we, as a society, ensure that people do not have unacceptably high incomes or avoid paying tax?  Certainly.  If so, how should we do this?  Well not by moral pressure since it ensure that individuals and institutions are effectively shamed into earning less or paying more taxes.  Moral pressure is arbitrary, generally ill-defined if defined at all and resembled the charivaris of the past, its scapegoats individuals and institutions.   It makes good headlines in the media but does not address the real issue: if the law allows me to avoid paying tax or to earn exorbitant sums of money why should I not do so?  If you don’t like taxation law as it stands, change the taxation law and stop whingeing when individuals and institutions act within the rules to pay less tax.  We’d all do it given the opportunity. 

 

---

[1] Franklin to Jean-Baptiste Leroy, 13 November 1789, Sparks, Jared, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, with Notes and a Life of the Author, 10 Vols. (Hilliard, Gray and Company), 1836-1840, Vol. 10, pp. 409-410. Daniel Defoe was the first author to use words to this effect in The Political History of the Devil, (T. Warner), 1726, p. 246, ‘Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believed.’

Captain Arthur Phillip and the law

Although law courts were established when the colony was founded, for the first thirty-five years, the Governors were absolute rulers. The British Parliament could control their authority, but England was 12,000 miles and eight months away by sea: by the time a complaint was heard and decided, nearly two years might have gone by. Phillip’s first and second Commissions, dated 12 October 1786 and 2 April 1787, appointed him as the representative of the Crown in an area embracing roughly the eastern half of Australia together with adjacent Pacific islands.[1] Before he left for NSW, Phillip received his Instructions (composed by Lord Sydney) from King George III, ‘with the advice of his Privy Council’. The first Instructions included Phillip’s Commission as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales. An amended Commission, dated 25 April 1787, designated the territory of New South Wales as including ‘all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean’ and running westward to the 135^th meridian, that is, about mid-way through the continent.[2] The Instructions advised Phillip about managing the convicts, granting and cultivating the land, and exploring the country. The Aborigines’ lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged, but the Instructions make no mention of protecting or even recognising their lands. It was assumed that Australia was terra nullius, that is, land belonging to no one, an assumption that shaped land law and occupation for more than 200 years

Phillip[3] was responsible solely to his superiors in London and was expected to carry out their orders as embodied in his first Instructions of 25 April 1787, his ‘additional’ Instructions of 20 August 1789[4] and official dispatches. Within these limits his powers were absolute. The Crown vested him with complete authority over the inhabitants and gave him the right to promulgate regulations touching practically all aspects of their lives. He combined executive and legislative functions and could remit sentences imposed by the Civil and Criminal Courts established under a warrant issued on 2 April 1787. Only the crimes of treason or wilful murder were exempt from this provision, but even here he could grant a reprieve while awaiting advice from London. Distance from Britain and the relative indifference of the Home Office towards the affairs of the infant colony enlarged even further the scope of the governor’s initiative and increased his responsibilities.

The New South Wales Courts Act 1787 established a legal system, providing for the establishment of the first NWS Courts of Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction by executive action. [5] It ensured that British law landed with the First Fleet in 1788[6] and that the convict colony had the basis for law enforcement. The Act also allowed for a more ‘summary’ legal proceeding than was usual, adapting court procedures to the conditions of the new convict colony. The Court was established by the Letters Patent of 2 April 1787. [7] The Charter of Justice 2 April 1787[8] provided the authority for the establishment of the first New South Wales Courts of Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction. The Charter of Justice is in the form of Letters Patent providing for a Deputy Judge-Advocate and six court officers to be appointed by the Governor and the establishment of a Civil Court. The Governor was required to give his permission to any death sentence imposed by the Court, and was empowered to give pardons. The Civil Court had the power to deal with disputes over property and had jurisdiction over wills and estates. Although the British intended to transport English law and legal proceedings along with the convicts, in practice there were significant departures from English law in the new and distant Colony. Notably, the first civil case heard in Australia, in July 1788, was brought by a convict couple. They successfully sued the captain of the ship in which they had been transported, for the loss of a parcel during the voyage.[9] In Britain, as convicts, they would have had no rights to bring such a case. In reaching this decision, the Judge Advocate, David Collins, ignored the English common law rule of felony attaint.[10] Under that rule, those who had been sentenced to death for felony were unable to hold property, give evidence or sue in the court. Henry and Susannah Cable had been sentenced to death and their attaint should have followed them for the full period of their transportation. Thus the ambivalent relationship between Australian and English common law began with the very first case. [11]

---

[1] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 24-25, 61-67, HRA, Series I, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

[2] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 84-91, HRA, Series I, Vol. 1, pp. 2-9.

[3] Fletcher, B.H., ‘Phillip, Arthur (1738-1814)’, ADB, Vol. 2, pp. 326-333, Mackaness, G., Admiral Arthur Phillip, (Angus & Robinson), 1937, Thea, Stanley, Arthur Phillip: Australia’s Founding Governor, (Movement Publications), 1985 and Frost, Alan, Arthur Phillip: His Voyaging 1738-1814, (Oxford University Press), 1987 provide contrasting biographical material. See also, Stockdale, John, The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay: with an account of the establishment of the colonies of Port Jackson & Norfolk Island, 3^rd ed., (Printed for J. Stockdale), 1790. See also Clune, David and Turner, Ken, (eds.), The Governors of New South Wales, 1788-2010, (Federation Press), 2009 on Phillip and subsequent governors.

[4] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 256-259, HRA, Series I, Vol. 1, pp. 9-16.

[5] House of Lords Record Office: 27 George III, 1787; HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 67-70.

[6] ‘8^th February 1788: The criminal court, consisting of six officers of his Majesty’s forces by land or sea, with the judge advocate, sat for the first time, before whom several convicts were tried for petty larceny. Some of them were acquitted, others sentenced to receive corporal punishment, and one or two were, by the decision of the court, ordered to a barren rock, or little island, in the middle of the harbour, there to remain on bread and water for a stated time.’ Ibid, White, John, Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, pp. 126-127

[7] Letters Patent are written instrument granting authority from the Crown, not enclosed but open to view, with the seal of the sovereign at the bottom. As the provision for establishing a Civil Court had not been included in the Act there was no legislative basis for its foundation.

[8] States Records, New South Wales: SRNSW: X24, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 70-76.

[9] Cable/Kable v Sinclair, July 1788 was the first civil action brought in Australian legal history. In it, two convicts successfully sued the master of one of the first fleet ships for the loss of their baggage on the voyage. In doing so, commentators argue, the colony began with the rule of law rather than the simple rule of the lash. See, Kercher, B., Debt, Seduction and Other Disasters: the Birth of Civil Law in Convict New South Wales, (Federation Press), 1996, pp. xviii-xix and Neal, David, The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony: Law and Politics in Early New South Wales, (Cambridge University Press), 1991, pp. 1-8.

[10] ‘Collins, David (1756-1810)’, ADB, Vol. 1, pp. 236-240. See also, Currey, John, David Collins: a colonial life, (Miegunyah Press), 2000.

[11] On the early development of a legal system in NSW, see, Nagle, John F., Collins, the courts & the colony: law & society in colonial New South Wales 1788-1796, (Indiana Press), 1996.

A question of legitimacy

There is an increasing chasm between the attitudes of political elites and the public at large across the globe that the economic crisis since 2007 has exacerbated.  What was acceptable behaviour by the elites in 2002 is no longer the case in 2012 largely because those elites have, with some justification, been blamed for a crisis in living standards for which some, at least, still appear to be in denial.  Corruption and sleaze challenges their moral legitimacy; economic crisis challenges their economic competence while the failure to sort out the problem threatens their political legitimacy.  There is a growing sense that not only are existing political elites unable to find solutions to global economic problems but that the scale of the problems is so great that any solutions they do come up with have little long-term effect.  It’s not simply a question of austerity and finding growth mechanisms that are sustainable, it’s the broader question of the legitimacy of the market economy.

At the root of the problem is the democratic deficit that lies at the heart of democracy.   This is nothing new.  There has always been a tension between the political elites elected within a democratic system and the often transient concerns of the electorate.  When economic conditions are good this is not a problem but when the economy slumps, the electorate seeks to assert its democratic credentials over and above those of the elites it elected and now seeks to control.  That the feeding frenzy associated with MPs’ expenses and phone hacking occurred after the economy slumped is no coincidence and is an attack on the moral competence of the elite.  The long recognised democratic deficit at the heart of the EU may have been acceptable (barely) when the organisation appeared to function at least competently (if not efficiently) but the euro crisis has made clear what most of us have known for decades that the EU was never an economic project but a political one for greater European integration and this challenges not only the notion of democracy but the nationalism of individual states.  

It is clear than the recreation of Christendom as Eurodom is unacceptable to most Europeans but the elite ploughs on regardless unwilling to listen to the people and unable to countenance that there could be an alternative vision.  When the people do assert their power, as for instance in the Irish referendums on the Lisbon treaty, then they are asked to vote again until they give the ‘right’ answer.  The attitude of successive British governments to a referendum on the EU (whatever the question) is evidence that the elite does not trust the people to come up with the right answer.  In the case of the Lisbon treaty this led to weasel words from the government that the treaty did not represent fundamental constitutional change (something few believed) and that, as a result, no referendum was necessary.  All you have to do is read the Lisbon treaty (something most MPs admit to never doing) to recognise that it did represent fundamental constitutional change and that a referendum should have occurred.  Politicians, it appears, expect us to trust them but they are unwilling to return the favour.  The consequence of this prevarication could well be that when there is a referendum, increasingly probable in the next five years, those wishing to come out of the EU could win, something that ten years ago would not have been the case. 

Captain Cook and Australia

Captain James Cook made three voyages to the South Pacific between 1768 and 1779 and on each occasion carried ‘Secret Instructions’ from the British Admiralty. These contained an outline of the route of the voyage, described the activities he and his men were to undertake, and the manner in which he was to report his progress. They were secret in that they held the real intentions and plans for the voyage, while other papers issued would be made available on demand to show Cook’s authority for his command and the enterprise. On his first voyage, Cook sailed in the Endeavour to Tahiti to assist in the scientific observation of the transit of the planet Venus and then sailed south in search of the fabled ‘Great Southern Continent’. [1]

Nathaniel Dance-Holland, James Cook, c1775

The Secret Instructions, dated 30 July 1768 contained in the Letterbook carried on the Endeavour, included Additional Instructions authorising James Cook to take possession of ‘a Continent or Land of great extent’ thought to exist in southern latitudes and instructed him ‘with the Consent of the Natives to take possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain’. [2] These provided that, if he found the Continent, he should chart its coasts, obtain information about its people, cultivate their friendship and alliance and annex any convenient trading posts in the King’s name. Cook followed the coast of New Zealand showing that Abel Tasman had been wrong to conclude that it formed part of the southern continent and then turned west, reaching the southern coast of NSW on 20 April 1770.[3] He sailed north, landing at Botany Bay one week later[4], before continuing to chart the Australian coast all the way north to the tip of Queensland. There, on Possession Island, just before sunset on 22 August 1770, he declared the coast a British possession

Notwithstand[ing] I had in the Name of His Majesty taken possession 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 possession of the whole Eastern Coast . . . by the name 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.[5]

Cook had recorded signs that the coast was inhabited during the voyage north noting as he returned to the ship the large number of fires on all the land and islands about them, ‘a certain sign they are Inhabited’.[6] Cook then sailed through Torres Strait, returning to England in May 1771. Cook’s Secret Instructions represented the first official expressions of British interest in Australia combining the pursuit of scientific discovery with the desire to find exploitable natural resources and to expand Britain’s control of strategic trading posts around the globe and assumed that these varied interests could be made compatible with a respect for the native populations in those countries. Cook’s observations along the NSW coastline on his first voyage formed the foundation for Britain’s decision to establish the colony at Botany Bay in 1788.[7]

Cook’s second and third voyages involved a fuller exploration of the Pacific and Atlantic, including the search for a north-west passage through the Pacific to the Atlantic. He was instructed to make scientific observations and collect natural specimens, and to show ‘every kind of civility and regard’ to the natives, at the same time taking care not ‘to be surprized by them’. With their consent, he was to take possession in the name of the King of any convenient situations in any country he might discover. Cook eventually reached the north-west passage, but the Bering Strait was ice-bound and he was unable to cross it. Returning through the South Pacific, he was killed in the Sandwich Islands on 14 February 1779.

John Cleveley, Death of Captain Cook, aquatint, 1781

---

[1] Beaglehole, J.C., The Life of Captain James Cook, (Stanford University Press), 1974 and his editions of Cook’s journals, The Journals of Captain James Cook: The Voyage of the Endeavour,1768-1771, (Cambridge University Press), 1955, The Journals of Captain James Cook: The Voyage of the Resolution and Adventure, 1772-1775, (Cambridge University Press), 1961 and The Journals of Captain James Cook: The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery, 1776-1780, 2 Vols. (Cambridge University Press), 1967 are the standard works. Edwards, Philip, (ed.), James Cook: The Journals, (Penguin Books), 2003 is an abridged version.

[2] This Letterbook contains the only surviving set of Cook’s original Secret Instructions. See, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (1), pp. 398-402 for the secret instructions for Cook’s third voyage.

[3] Ibid, Edwards, Philip, (ed.), James Cook: The Journals, pp. 120-121.

[4] Ibid, Edwards, Philip, (ed.), James Cook: The Journals, pp. 122-123.

[5] Ibid, Edwards, Philip, (ed.), James Cook: The Journals, pp. 170-171.

[6] Unlike Cook’s interaction with other peoples in the Pacific and New Zealand, his contacts with the peoples in Australia have been relegated to a footnote in history perhaps because they were so brief. See, Nugent, Maria, Captain Cook Was Here, (Cambridge University Press), 2009 for a detailed examination and critique of Cook’s eight days at Botany Bay in late April-early May 1770 and the original encounter on land between the British explorers and the first Australians that has become one of Australia’s founding legends.

[7] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (1) contains extracts from Cook’s private log and the log book of the Endeavour. However, the volume is perhaps most valuable for the journals of officers, pp. 175-298.

Second and Third Fleets

Unlike the First Fleet, where great efforts were taken to ensure the health of the convicts, the Second Fleet[1] was contracted to the slave-trading firm Camden, Calvert & King who undertook to transport, clothe and feed the convicts for a flat fee of £17 7s 6d per head[2], whether they landed alive or not.[3] Unlike the slave trade where deaths in transit reduced profits, the contractors had little incentive to worry about conditions. Upon arrival the sickly convicts were a drain on the already struggling colony. The only agents of the Crown in the crew were the naval agent, Lieutenant John Shapcote, who died on the voyage and Captain William Hill, commander of the NSW Corps, all other crew were supplied by the firm. Hill afterwards wrote a strong criticism of the ships’ masters stating that

...the more they can withhold from the unhappy wretches the more provisions they have to dispose of at a foreign market, and the earlier in the voyage they die, the longer they can draw the deceased’s allowance to themselves.[4]

The fleet was comprised of six ships, one Royal Navy escort, four convict ships and a supply ship. The Lady Juliana sailed on 29 July 1789 arriving at Port Jackson after a voyage lasting 309 days on 3 June 1790 before the other convict ships and is not always counted as a member of the Second Fleet.[5] The store ship Justinian did not sail with the convict ships on 19 January 1790 (it left the following day) and arrived before them on 20 June 1790. HMS Guardian set out before the convict ships on 12 September 1789 but struck ice after leaving the Cape of Good Hope.[6] The Surprize, Neptune and Scarborough had previously been involved in transporting slaves to North America and left England on 19 January 1790, with 1,006 convicts (928 male and 78 female) on board. They made only one stop on the way, at the Cape of Good Hope. Here 20 male convicts, survivors from Guardian, were taken on board. The three vessels made a faster trip than the First Fleet, arriving at Port Jackson in the last week of June 1790, three weeks after Lady Juliana and a week after the Justinian.

The voyage was relatively fast, but the mortality rate was the highest in the history of transportation to Australia. Of the 1,026 convicts who embarked, over a quarter, 267 (256 men and 11 women), died during the voyage. On Neptune they were deliberately starved, kept heavily ironed and frequently refused access to the deck. Scurvy could not be checked. On Scarborough, rations were not deliberately withheld, but a reported mutiny attempt led to the convicts being closely confined below decks. On arrival at Port Jackson, half naked convicts were lying without bedding, too ill to move. Those unable to walk were slung over the side. At least 488 sick were landed (47% of those embarked). The remainder were described as ‘lean and emaciated’ and exhibiting ‘more horrid spectacles than had ever been witnessed in this country’. [7] Among the arrivals on the Second Fleet were D’Arcy Wentworth and his convict mistress Catherine Crowley, on Neptune and John Macarthur, then a young lieutenant in the NSW Corps and his wife Elizabeth, on Scarborough.

Map of Sydney Cover, 1788

When news of the horrors of the Second Fleet reached England, both public and official opinion was shocked. An enquiry was held but no attempt was made to arrest Donald Traill, master of Neptune and described as a demented sadist or bring a public prosecution against him, the other masters, or the firm of contractors. They had already been contracted by the government to prepare the Third Fleet for sailing to Port Jackson in 1791. Traill, along with his Chief Mate William Ellerington, were privately prosecuted for the murder of an un-named convict and also a seaman named Andrew Anderson and a cook named John Joseph. But, after a trial lasting three hours before Sir James Marriott in the Admiralty Court, the jury acquitted both men on all charges ‘without troubling the Judge to sum up the evidence.’[8]

The Third Fleet consisted of 11 ships that set sail from United Kingdom in February, March and April 1791 bound for the Sydney penal settlement, with over 2,000 convicts. [9] The first ship to arrive in Sydney was the Mary Ann with its cargo of female convicts and provisions on the 9 July 1791. The Mary Ann could only state that more ships were expected to be sent. The Mary Ann had sailed on her own to Sydney Cove, and there is some argument about whether she was the last ship of the Second Fleet, or the first ship of the Third Fleet. The ships that make up each Fleet, however, are decided from the viewpoint of the settlers in Sydney Cove. For them the second set of ships arrived in 1790 (June), and the third set of ships arrived in 1791 (July-October). The Mary Ann was a 1791 arrival. The next ship to arrive just over 3 weeks later on 1 August 1791 was the Matilda. With the Matilda came news that there were another nine ships making their way for Sydney, and which were expected to arrive shortly. The final vessel, the Admiral Barrington, did not arrive until the 16 October nearly eleven weeks after the Matilda, and fourteen weeks after the Mary Ann. 194 male convicts and 4 female convicts died during this voyage.[10] Though this death rate was high, it was nowhere near as bad as that which had occurred on the Second Fleet.

Phillip now had more mouths to feed and to avert another famine, hired the transport Atlantic to sail to Calcutta for a cargo of rice.[11] She sailed late in October and with good sailing was expected to return by the following April or May. By early 1792, food stocks were down to dangerous levels.[12] The grain harvest at Parramatta had been above expectations, but still too small to feed the colony for more than a few weeks. Phillip had no choice but to reduce the ration yet again. Food shortages lead to desperation and food stealing became common. Discontent became so close to revolt that the Governor refused close assembly in numbers for any reason. A numbers count revealed that 44 men and women were missing. Most had wandered into the bush, believing that they could find a better place; few were ever found or returned. In April 1792, with no sign of the Atlantic, Phillip reduced the ration again to near starvation level with flour down to 1½ pounds and 2 pounds of maize and some pork. The mortality rate had reached desperate proportions and a general air of despair was everywhere. ‘Distressing as it was to see the poor wretches dropping into the grave’, David Collins wrote,

...it was far more afflicting to observe the countenance and emaciated persons of many who remained, soon to follow their miserable companions...It was not hard labour that destroyed them; it was an entire want of strength in the constitution to receive nourishment, to throw off the debility that pervaded their whole system.[13]

The Atlantic finally returned from Calcutta with a cargo of rice and other food including pork; the latter found to be ‘for the most part putrid’ and had to be thrown out. Phillip though, had good reason to believe that the worse was over. HMS Gorgon had returned from England with assurances from authorities that regular shipments of food and other supplies would be forthcoming. The first sign of this promise was the arrival in July, of the supply ship Britannia with four months of flour and eight months of beef and pork ‘for every description of persons in the settlement at full allowance.’ It also carried a year’s supply of clothing and the news that two more ships were on the way. The full standard ration was thereby restored.

When Phillip left the colony in December 1792, its population was 4,222, of which 1,256 were at Sydney, 1,845 at Parramatta and 1,121 at Norfolk Island. The colony was still short of many necessities and livestock. However, more than 1,700 acres of land were under cultivation or cleared of timber for cultivation. Many settlers were able to keep themselves, and some had surpluses of grain and vegetables to sell. The harvest before Phillip’s departure had yielded 4,800 bushels and within another year, Grose optimistically but prematurely reported that the colony was virtually independent of outside supply.

---

[1] William Grenville to Phillip, 24 December 1789, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 284-286 informed Phillip of the new batch of convicts.

[2] While the contract for the First Fleet had been a generous £54,000 for seven ships carrying a thousand convicts and marines, Camden, Calvert & King were paid £22,370 for four ships. Hill argued that the appalling conditions were a consequence of the contract with slaver-traders.

[3] Flynn, Michael, The Second Fleet: Britain’s Grim Convict Armada of 1790, (Library of Australian History), 1993, ibid, Bateson, Charles, The Convict Ships 1787-1868, pp. 120-131.

[4] Captain Hill to Wathen, 26 July 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), p. 367. The recipient of the letter was the abolitionist William Wilberforce. The anguished nature of the complete letter suggests that he tried but failed to alleviate the suffering of the convicts though it was perhaps Hill’s intervention that resulted in his ship, the Surprize losing only 14 per cent of its cargo while the Neptune and Scarborough lost twice as many. See also, the extract from a letter, Rev R. Johnson to Mr Thornton, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 386-389.

[5] On the Lady Juliana see, Rees, Siân, The Floating Brothel: the extraordinary true story of an eighteenth-century ship and its cargo of female convicts, (Hodder), 2001.

[6] Commanded by Lieutenant Edward Riou, it struck an iceberg off the African coast. Riou, after parting with as many of his men as the boats would hold, not only successfully navigated his half-sinking ship 400 miles to the Cape of Good Hope but kept order amongst the panic-stricken convicts, an achievement that has few parallels in naval history. See, Riou to Stephens, 20 May 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 336-340.

[7] Phillip’s initial response can be found in Phillip to Grenville, 13 July 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 354-356.

[8] Admiralty Proceedings on the Sessions held 7^th and 8^th June 1792 before Sir James Marriott and others, Trials of Kimber, Traill, Ellerington and Hindmarch for murder and Berry and Slack for piracy, London, 1792

[9] Ibid, Bateson, Charles, The Convict Ships 1787-1868, pp. 131-139 and Ryan, R.J., The Third Fleet Convicts: an alphabetical listing of names, giving place and date of conviction, length of sentence, and ship of transportation, (Horwitz Grahame), 1983

[10] New Holland Morning Post, 18 October 1791.

[11] The problem was evident in a letter from Phillip to Lord Grenville, 5 November 1791, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 532-541.

[12] See, Phillip to Henry Dundas, 19 March 1792, Phillip to Nepean, 29 March 1792, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 596-599, 610-613.

[13] Ibid, Collins, David, An account of the English colony in New South Wales, p. 207.

Publications: revised version

Those publications with an asterisk (*) were co-written with C.W. Daniels. This list does not include editorials for Teaching History, book reviews or unpublished papers. Neither does it include the two series of books for which I have been joint-editor: Cambridge Topics in History and Cambridge Perspectives in History. Including these books would increase the length of this appendix by 52 books.

Computer-based data and social and economic history (for the Local History Classroom Project), (1974)
Social and Economic History and the Computer (for LHCP), (1975)
‘Local and National History -- an interrelated response’, in Suffolk History Forum, 1977
‘Our Future Local Historians’, in The Local Historian, volume xiii, 1978 *
‘Sixth Form History’, in Teaching History, May 1976 *
‘Sixth Form History’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 3^rd June 1977 *
‘The new history -- an essential reappraisal’, in ibid, 2^nd December 1977 *
‘Interrelated Issues’, in ibid, 1^st December 1978 *
‘The Myth Exposed’, in ibid, 30^th November 1979 * also reprinted in John Fines (ed.) see below
Nineteenth Century Britain, (Macmillan), 1980 *
‘The Local History Classroom Project’, in Developments in History Teaching, (University of Exeter), 1980 *
‘A Chronic Hysteresis’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 5^th December 1980 *
Twentieth Century Europe, (Macmillan), 1981 *
‘Is there still room for History in the secondary curriculum?’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 5^th December 1981 *
‘Content considered’, in ibid, 9^th April 1982 *
Twentieth Century Britain, (Macmillan), 1982 *
‘A Level History’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 8^th April 1983 *
‘History in danger revisited’, in ibid, 9^th December 1983 *
‘History and study skills’, in John Fines (ed.), Teaching History, (Holmes McDougall), 1983 
‘History and study skills’, reprinted in School and College, iv (4), 1983
Four scripts for Sussex Tapes, 1983
People, Land and Trade 1830-1914
Pre-eminence and Competition 1830-1914
The Social Impact of the Industrial Revolution
Lloyd George to Beveridge 1906-1950
Four computer programs for Sussex Tapes, 1984
The Industrial Revolution
Population, Medicine and Agriculture
Transport: road, canal and railway
Social Impact of Change
‘It’s time History Teachers were offensive’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 28^th November 1984 *
The Chartists, (Macmillan), 1984 *
‘Using documents with sixth formers’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 29^th November 1985 *
Learning History: A Guide to Advanced Study, (Macmillan), 1986 *
GCSE History, (The Historical Association), 1986, revised edition, 1987, as editor and contributor
‘Training or Survival?’ with M. Booth and G. Shawyer in The Times Educational Supplement, 10^th April 1987
Change and Continuity in British Society 1800-1850, (Cambridge Topics in History, Cambridge University Press), 1987
‘There are always alternatives: Britain during the Depression’ for BBC Radio, 14^th September 1987
‘Cultural imperialism’, in The Times Educational Supplement, 4^th December, 1987
‘The Training of History Teachers Project’, in Teaching History, 50, January 1988
‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC,) 1988 
‘The Development of Children’s Historical Thinking’ with G. Shawyer and M. Booth, Cambridge Journal of Education, volume 18(2), 1988.
‘The New Demonology’, Teaching History, 53, October 1988
The Future of the Past: History in the Curriculum 5-16: A Personal Overview, (The Historical Association), 1988 
‘History Study Skills: Working with Sources’, History Sixth, 3, October 1988 *
‘A Critique of GCSE History: the results of The Historical Association Survey’, Teaching History, March 1989.
‘History Textbook Round-up’, Teachers’ Weekly, September 1990.
‘Partnership and the Training of Student History Teachers’, with M. Booth and G. Shawyer, in M. Booth, J. Furlong and M. Wilkin (eds.), Partnership in Initial Teacher Training, (Cassell), 1990
Economy and Society in Modern Britain 1700-1850 (Routledge), 1991 
Church and State in Modern Britain 1700-1850 (Routledge), 1991 
‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC), 1991 
‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’, Teaching History, 63, April 1991
‘BTEC and History’, in John Fines (ed.), History 16-19, (The Historical Association), 1991 
‘What about the author?’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, volume 2(1), September 1991
‘Appeasement: A matter of opinion?’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, volume 2(2), January 1992
Economic Revolutions 1750-1850 (Cambridge Topics in History, CUP), 1992 
‘Suez: a question of causation’, Hindsight: GCSE Modern History Review, volume 4(1), September 1993
‘History’ in Your Choice of A-Levels, (CRAC,) 1993 
History and post-16 vocational courses’, in H. Bourdillon (ed.), Teaching History, (Routledge), 1993
‘Learning effectively at Advanced Level’, pamphlet for PGCE ITT course, (Open University), 1994
Preparing for Inspection, (The Historical Association), 1994
Managing the Learning of History, (David Fulton), 1995 
Chartism: People, Events and Ideas (Perspectives in History, Cambridge University Press), 1998
BBC History File: consultant on five Key Stage 3 programmes on Britain 1750-1900
Revolution, Radicalism and Reform: England 1780-1846, (Perspectives in History, Cambridge University Press), 2001 
‘The state in the 1840s’, Modern History Review, September 2003
‘Chartism and the state’, Modern History Review, November 2003
‘Chadwick and Simon: the problem of public health reform’, Modern History Review, April 2005
Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839, Eureka 1854, (Clio Publishing), 2010
Three Rebellions: Canada 1837-1838, South Wales 1839, Eureka 1854, (Clio Publishing), 2011 Kindle edition
Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882, (Clio Publishing), 2011
Economy, Population and Transport (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition
Work, Health and Poverty, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition
Education, Crime and Leisure, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2011 Kindle edition
Class, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2012 Kindle edition
Religion and Government, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2012 Kindle edition
Society under Pressure: Britain 1830-1914, (Nineteenth Century British Society), 2012 Kindle edition
Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain, 1830-1918, (Authoring History), 2012
Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882, (Clio Publishing), 2012 Kindle edition
Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain 1830-1918, 2012,  Kindle edition
Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885 Volume 1: Autocracy, Rebellion and Liberty, (Authoring History), 2012
Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885, Volume 2: The Irish, the Fenians and the Metis, (Authoring History), 2012
Resistance and Rebellion in the British Empire, 1600-1980, Clio Publishing, 2013
Settler Australia, 1780-1880, Volume 1: Settlement, Protest and Control, (Authoring History), 2013
Settler Australia, 1780-1880, Volume 2: Eureka and Democracy, (Authoring History), 2013
Rebellion in Canada, 1837-1885, 2013, Kindle edition
'A Peaceable Kingdom': Essays on Nineteenth Century Canada, (Authoring History), 2013
Resistance and Rebellion in the British Empire, 1600-1980, 2013, Kindle edition
Settler Australia, 1780-1880, 2013, Kindle Edition
Coping with Change: British Society, 1780-1914, (Authoring History), 2013
Before Chartism: Exclusion and Resistance, (Authoring History), 2014
Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat', (Authoring History), 2014, Kindle edition
Chartism: Rise and Demise, (Authoring History), 2014
Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain, 1780-1945, (Authoring History), 2014.
Before Chartism: Exclusion and Resistance, (Authoring History), 2014, Kindle edition
Chartism: Rise and Demise, (Authoring History), 2015, Kindle edition
'Development of the Professions', in Ross, Alastair, Innovating Professional Services: Transforming Value and Efficiency, (Ashgate), 2015, pp. 271-274
Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The Midlands and the South, (Authoring History), 2015
Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The North, Scotland Wales and Ireland, (Authoring History), 2015
Chartism, Regions and Economies, (Authoring History), 2016
Breaking the Habit: A Life of History, (Authoring History), 2016
Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The Midlands and the South, (Authoring History), 2016, Kindle edition
Chartism: Localities, Spaces and Places, The North, Scotland Wales and Ireland, .(Authoring History), 2016. Kindle edition
Chartism, Regions and Economies, (Authoring History), 2016. Kindle edition.
Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat', revised edition, (Authoring History), 2016 Robert Guiscard: Portrait of a Warlord, (Authoring History), 2016
Chartism: A Global History and other essays, (Authoring History), 2016

Chartism: A Global History and other essays, (Authoring History), 2016, Kindle edition.

Roger of Sicily: Portrait of a Ruler, (Authoring History), 2016.

Three Rebellions: Canada, South Wales and Australia, (Authoring History), 2016.

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882, (Authoring History), 2017.

Disrupting the British World, 1600-1980, (Authoring History), 2017.
Britain 1780-1850: A Simple Guide, (Authoring History), 2017.
People and Places: Britain 1780-1950, (Authoring History), 2017.
Britain 1780-1945: Society under Pressure, (Authoring History), 2018.
Britain 1780-1945: Reforming Society, (Authoring History), 2018.

Three Rebellions: Canada, South Wales and Australia, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1830-1882, (Authoring History), 2018. Kindle edition.
Disrupting the British World, 1600-1980, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.
Britain 1780-1945: Society under Pressure, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.
Britain 1780-1945: Reforming Society, (Authoring History), 2018, Kindle edition.
Guiscard: Portrait of a Warlord, (Authoring History), 2016, 2018, Kindle edition.
Roger of Sicily: Portrait of a Ruler, (Authoring History), 2016, 2018, Kindle edition.





 



    

 

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882

JUST PUBLISHED IN KINDLE

 

Famine, Fenians and Freedom, 1840-1882 is the second volume of a trilogy on resistance and rebellion in the British Empire. It is a detailed and nuanced study of the exodus of the impoverished and persecuted from Ireland before and after the Great Famine of the 1840s as they emigrated, or in some cases were transported to, America, Canada and Australia as well as to the British mainland. The critical question for many Irish men and women was whether Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom, or whether they should seek greater freedom through devolved power or separation. Young Ireland and Fenian movements sought Ireland's independence through rebellion while the populist and parliamentarian constitutionalist Repeal Association and campaign for Home Rule sought devolved government. This was a transnational struggle that carried across the Atlantic to the United States and Canada, to South Africa and Australasia where it was absorbed by existing Irish communities and reinforced by recent immigrants. In these disparate communities, the notion of an independent Ireland was sustained though what it meant in practice within those communities differed. This was an Ireland dominated by personalities such as Daniel O'Connell, James Stephens, Isaac Butt, and Charles Stewart Parnell and by rebellions against British domination in 1848 and 1867. It examines how those who saw themselves as exiled sought to restore Irish independence from what they regarded as British tyranny. This led to unsuccessful Fenian invasions of Canada by Irish-Americans in 1866, 1870 and 1871, the attempted assassination of a member of the British Royal family, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, in Australia in 1868, and the murder of two British politicians in Phoenix Park, Dublin in 1882. It is a story replete with dramatic events; the monster meetings of the Repeal Association, the battle of Ridgeway in 1866, the voyages of the Erin's Hope and the Catalpa, the Manchester 'outrages', and the Clerkenwell bombing, and considers developments in Ireland in their global colonial context and setting.

Contents

Preface
1: A diaspora
2: Repeal, famine and rebellion
3: Fenians and rebellion in Britain, 1850-1882
4: Irish nationalism in North America to 1865
5: Rebellion in Canada
6: Rebellion in Australia
7: Linking Rebellion
Bibliography
Index

Features

The nature and impact of the Famine in its global Irish context in Britain, the United States, Canada and Australia Why, how and where Irish emigrated and how they settled into their new communities How different approaches to Irish nationalism evolved in Ireland, British colonies in Canada and Australia and in the United States and why it failed to achieve its objectives between 1840 and 1882 The nature and differences in the character of Irish rebellion in Ireland, mainland Britain, Canada and Australia in 1848 and during the 1860s looking especially at its military character and failure The role played by individuals such as Daniel O'Connell, Thomas Davis, John Mitchel, John O'Mahony, James Stephens, John O'Neill, John Devoy, Michael Davitt, Isaac Butt and Charles Stewart Parnell.

The First Fleet

The First Fleet consisted of six convict ships (Alexander, Charlotte, Lady Penrhyn, Friendship, Prince of Wales and Scarborough), three food and supply transports (Fishburn, Borrowdale and Golden Grove) and two Royal Navy escorts (HMS Sirius and HMS Supply).[1] It left England on 13 May 1787 stopping at Tenerife on 3 June[2], Rio de Janeiro between 5 August and 3 September[3] before running before the westerly winds to Cape Town, where it arrived in mid-October.[4] Food supplies were replenished and the Fleet was stocked up on plants, seeds and livestock for its arrival in Australia. Assisted by the gales of the latitudes below the fortieth parallel, the heavily-laden transports surged through the violent seas. A freak storm struck as they began to head north around VDL, damaging the sails and masts of some of the ships. In November, Phillip transferred to Supply. With Alexander, Friendship and Scarborough, the fastest ships in the Fleet and carrying most of the male convicts, Supply hastened ahead to prepare for the arrival of the rest. Phillip intended to select a suitable location, find good water, clear the ground and perhaps to build some huts and other structures before the other ships arrived.[5] However, the Supply reached Botany Bay on 18 January 1788 only hours before the rest of the Fleet, so no preparatory work was possible. The three fastest transports in the advance group arrived on 19 January; slower ships, including the Sirius arrived the following day. Eleven vessels carrying about 1,400 people and stores had travelled more than 15,000 miles in 252 days without losing a ship. Forty-eight people had died on the journey, a death rate of just over three per cent. Given the rigours of the voyage, the navigational problems, the poor condition and sea-faring inexperience of the convicts, the primitive medical knowledge, the lack of precautions against scurvy, the crammed and foul conditions of the ships, poor planning and inadequate equipment, this was a remarkable achievement.

The Founding of Australia, 26 January 1788, by Capt. Arthur Phillip R.N. Sydney Cove
Original oil sketch [1937] by Algernon Talmadge R.A. ML 1222

During the voyage there were seven births, while 69 people either died or were discharged or deserted (61 males and 8 females). As no complete crew musters have survived for the six convict transports and three supply ships, there may have been as many as 110 more seamen. The number of people directly associated with the First Fleet will probably never be exactly established and all accounts of the event vary slightly. Mollie Gillen gives the following statistics.[6]

	Embarked at Portsmouth	Landed at Port Jackson
Officials and passengers	15	14
Ships’ crews	324	269
Marines	247	245
Marines’ wives and children	46	54
Convicts (men)	579	543
Convicts (women)	193	189
Convicts’ children	14	18
Total	1403	1332

It was soon realised that Botany Bay did not live up to the glowing account that Captain James Cook had given it in 1770. The bay was open and unprotected, fresh water was scarce and Phillip considered the soil around Botany Bay was poor for growing crop. The area was studded with enormously strong trees. When the convicts tried to cut them down, their tools broke and the tree trunks had to be blasted out of the ground with gunpowder.[7] The primitive huts built for the officers and officials quickly collapsed in rainstorms. The marines had a habit of getting drunk and not guarding the convicts properly and their commander, Major Robert Ross was arrogant and lazy and this caused some difficulties for Phillip.[8] Crucially, Phillip worried that his fledgling colony was exposed to attack from the local indigenous people, the Eora, who seemed curious but suspicious of the newcomers or foreign powers. On 21 January, Phillip and a party that included John Hunter left Botany Bay in three small boats to explore other bays to the North. Phillip discovered that Port Jackson, immediately to the North, was an excellent site for a colony with sheltered anchorages, fresh water and fertile soil. Cook had seen and named the harbour, but had not entered. Phillip’s impressions of the harbour were recorded in a letter he sent to England later; ‘the finest harbour in the world, in which a thousand sail of the line may ride in the most perfect security...’[9] The party returned on 23 January and was startled when two French ships, a scientific expedition led by Jean-François de La Pérouse came into sight and entered Botany Bay.[10] The French remained until 10 March and had expected to find a thriving colony where they could repair ships and restock supplies, not a newly arrived fleet of convicts worse off than themselves.

On 26 January 1788, the fleet weighed anchor and by evening had entered Port Jackson. The site selected for the anchorage had deep water close to the shore, was sheltered and had a small stream flowing into it. Phillip named it Sydney Cove, after Lord Sydney the Home Secretary. It was to be almost two and a half years before other ships arrived with their cargo of new convicts and provisions. From the start the settlement was overwhelmed with problems. Very few convicts knew how to farm and the soil around Sydney Cove was poor. Instead of Cook’s lush pastures, well watered and fertile ground, suitable for growing all types of foods and providing grazing for cattle, they found a hot, dry, unfertile land unsuitable for the small farming necessary to make the settlement self-sufficient. Everyone, from the convicts to Captain Phillip, was on rationed food. Shelter was also a problem. They had very little building material and the government had provided only a very limited supply of poor quality tools.[11] Extra clothing had been forgotten and, by the time the Second Fleet arrived, convicts and marines alike were dressed in patched and threadbare clothing.[12] By July 1788, all the ships except the Sirius and Supply had left and the settlement was isolated.

The Sirius

On 2 October, the Sirius was despatched to Cape Town to purchase provisions.[13] Until her return on 2 May 1789, rations were cut back and this reduced work on farming and building. In early 1788, the Supply had taken a small contingent of convicts and marines led by Second Lieutenant Philip Gidley King, Phillip’s protégé, to Norfolk Island to set up another penal colony. The land proved more fertile than Sydney Cove and the timber of better quality, but the rocky cliffs surrounding the island meant that it could not be loaded on the ship for transport to Sydney Cove. The Supply brought a few green turtles back on its voyages from Norfolk Island that helped to supplement the food in the colony.[14] Exploration of the country to the west of Sydney Cove resulted in the location of better land on the Parramatta River. A settlement was to develop there, called Rose Hill and agriculture, although on a small scale at first, was eventually successful.[15] In an attempt to deal with the food crisis, Phillip in 1789 granted James Ruse, a convict the land of Experiment Farm at Parramatta on the condition that he developed a viable agriculture and became the first person to grow grain successfully in Australia.[16] However, lack of transport meant that crops, when harvested, would not be readily available for Sydney.[17]

In February 1790, the Sirius was ordered to proceed to China to purchase further supplies. This was delayed as she and the Supply were needed to take more convicts to Norfolk Island, in an attempt to reduce pressure on the dwindling supplies in Sydney. On 19 February the Sirius ran aground and was wrecked off Norfolk Island leaving the colony with just one ship.[18] The Supply returned in April and on 17 April left to sail to Batavia to get supplies as the situation was becoming desperate with only three months’ supply left of some foods.[19] On 3 June, the Lady Juliana,[20] a transport with 222 female convicts arrived at Sydney Cove followed on 20 June by the Justinian with provisions for the colony. Rations were immediately increased and, with the arrival of further ships carrying convicts, the old labour hours were restored. New buildings were planned and large areas of land near Rose Hill were cleared for cultivation. In October 1790, the Supply returned safely from its voyage to Batavia, and eight weeks later, a Dutch ship, the Waaksamheyd, which Lieutenant Ball had hired, arrived with a full cargo of rice flour and salted meat. It turned out though, that much of the food was of such poor quality, as to be inedible, and after only a few months, the colony was once again on the verge of starvation.

---

[1] On the First Fleet, see ibid, Gillen, Mollie, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet and ibid, Bateson, Charles, The Convict Ships 1787-1868, pp. 94-119. Among the more important accounts published by officers of the First Fleet are Phillip, Arthur, The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay: with an account of the establishment of the colonies of Port Jackson & Norfolk Island, (John Stockdale), 1790, White, John, Journal of a voyage to New South Wales with sixty-five plates of nondescript animals, birds, lizards, serpents, curious cones of trees and other natural productions, (J. Debrett), 1790, Tench, Watkin, A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay: With an Account of New South Wales, Its Productions, Inhabitants, &c. To which is Subjoined, a List of the Civil and Military Establishments at Port Jackson, (printed for Messrs. H. Chamberlaine, W. Wilson, L. White, P. Byrne, A. Gruebier, Jones, and B. Dornin), 1789, ibid, Hunter, John, An historical journal of events at Sydney and at sea, 1787-1792 and Collins, David, An account of the English colony in New South Wales from its first settlement in January 1788, to August 1801: with remarks on the dispositions, customs, manners, &c., of the native inhabitants of that country, (T. Cadell and W. Davies), 1798. See also, Irvine, Nance, (ed.), The Sirius Letters: The Complete Letters of Newton Fowell, midshipman and Lieutenant aboard the Sirius, Flagship of the First Fleet on its voyage to New South Wales, (Fairfax Library), 1988.

[2] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 5 June 1787, Phillip to Under Secretary Nepean, 5 June 1787, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 106-108.

[3] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 2 September 1787, Phillip to Under Secretary Nepean, 2 September 1787, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 109-117.

[4] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 10 November 1787, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 118-119.

[5] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 15 May 1788, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 121-136 considers the first three months at Sydney Cove.

[6] Ibid, Gillen, Mollie, The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet, p. 445.

[7] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 121-122, 348 gives Phillip’s assessment of Botany Bay and his reasons for choosing Sydney Cove.

[8] Moore, John, The First Fleet marines, 1788-1792, (University of Queensland Press), 1987. See also, Macmillan, David S., ‘Ross, Robert (1740?-1794)’, ADB, Vol. 2, pp. 397-398. Tensions between Phillip and Ross were evident from the founding of the settlement.

[9] HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 67-70.

[10] Dyer, Colin, The French Explorers and Sydney, (University of Queensland Press), 2009 draws on French observations of the British convict settlement at Sydney Cove.

[11] HRNSW, Vol. 2, p. 388 lists the articles sent with the First Fleet

[12] Phillip to Nepean, 5 July 1788, Phillip to Lord Sydney, 5 July 1788, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 142-144, 145-151.

[13] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 30 October 1788, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 207-209.

[14] Phillip to Lord Sydney, 28 September 1788, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 185-193.

[15] On the early development of Rose Hill see, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 198, 209-217.

[16] An account of Ruse’s methods is given in Tench, Watkin, A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson, (Nicol and Sewell), 1793, pp. 80-81. See also, Fitzhardinge, L.F., ‘Tench, Watkin (1758?-1833)’, ADB, Vol. 2, pp. 506-507 and Wood, G.A., ‘Lieutenant William Dawes and Captain Watkin Tench’, Journal and Proceedings, (Royal Australian Historical Society), Vol. 10, (1), (1924), pp. 1-24.

[17] The problem of the lack of artisans and farmers identified by Phillip was quickly acknowledged in London and ‘it is advisable that twenty-five of those confined in the hulks...who are likely to be the most useful should be sent out in the ship [Lady Juliana] intended to convey provisions and stores’: see Lord Sydney to the Lords of the Admiralty, 29 April 1789, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 230-231.

[18] Captain John Hunter had expressed concerns over the soundness of the ship the previous year especially ‘that the copper has not been taken off her bottom...between eight and nine years’: Hunter to Secretary Stephens, 18 February 1789, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), p. 227. See also, Ross to Phillip, 22 March 1790 and Phillip to Lord Sydney, 11 April 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 319-321, 326-327, Harris to Clayton, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 340-342 on the loss of the ship and Lieutenant Fowell to his father, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), 31 July 1790, pp. 373-386.

[19] Phillip to Nepean, 15 April 1790, 16 April 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 330-331.

[20] Phillip to Nepean, 17 June 1790, HRNSW, Vol. 1, (2), pp. 346-351.

Sex, Work and Politics: Women in Britain, 1830-1918

JUST PUBLISHED

 

In 1830, women of all classes were repressed in a male-dominated society. By 1918, largely through their own struggles, they had seized control over most areas of their lives. Some of these sought access to the public sphere in education, the professions and central and local government. Others aimed to improve women’s legal and economic status within marriage. Married women’s property rights, divorce, custody of children, domestic violence as well as prostitution were all significant areas in which feminists campaigned for changes in the male-oriented status of the law and the differing moral standards to which wives and husbands were expected to conform. The long campaign for women's suffrage by suffragists and after 1903 suffragettes and the effects of World War 1 culminated in some women getting the vote in 1918 and a decade later women achieved the vote on the same terms as men. Yet, despite these advances for many largely working-class women, the tyranny of multiple pregnancies, poorly paid work and limited access to the means of personal improvement remained. This book explores the ways in which women's status in society developed and changed during the nineteenth and early-twentieth century by looking at the nature of and challenges to women's place in a masculine world, the character of work and how women achieved political and legal rights.

This innovative study is available from: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Work-Politics-Britain-1830-1918/dp/146644908X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336837483&sr=1-2