What are the competing arguments about the foundations of Australia?
After Great Britain lost the War of American Independence in 1783, the issue of what to do with Britain's unwanted convicts became increasingly acute. As Deborah Gare and David Ritter make clear, Britain's gaols were overflowing 'with thousands of men and women convicted for even petty crimes,' which prompted the need to seek out an alternative site to transport its unwanted convicts. Indeed, many contemporaries have detailed the dire criminal circumstances in Britain at the time. For example, the prison reformer John Howard, in The State of the Prisons in England and Wales (1777), outlined how Britain's prisons were 'scantily supplied' with food and water and that the air within them was 'made poisonous to a more intense degree by the effluvia from the sick.' Lord Sydney, too, recognised that Britain's gaols were overflowing in his address to the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury in 1786, and—seeking an alternative to the American colonies—considered the 'remoteness' of New South Wales as 'peculiarly adapted to ... providing a remedy for the evils' in Britain's criminal sphere.
After Great Britain lost the War of American Independence in 1783, the issue of what to do with Britain's unwanted convicts became increasingly acute. As Deborah Gare and David Ritter make clear, Britain's gaols were overflowing 'with thousands of men and women convicted for even petty crimes,' which prompted the need to seek out an alternative site to transport its unwanted convicts. Indeed, many contemporaries have detailed the dire criminal circumstances in Britain at the time. For example, the prison reformer John Howard, in The State of the Prisons in England and Wales (1777), outlined how Britain's prisons were 'scantily supplied' with food and water and that the air within them was 'made poisonous to a more intense degree by the effluvia from the sick.' Lord Sydney, too, recognised that Britain's gaols were overflowing in his address to the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury in 1786, and—seeking an alternative to the American colonies—considered the 'remoteness' of New South Wales as 'peculiarly adapted to ... providing a remedy for the evils' in Britain's criminal sphere.
These contemporary accounts of Britain's prisons and the evident convict problem seem to support the idea that Australia was founded primarily as a dumping ground for convicts. However, this argument—albeit a popular one—is only one of several theories concerning the foundation of Australia. In Geoffrey Blainey’s seminal text, The Tyranny of Distance (1966), he critiqued the view that the English only sought to colonise Australia as a means of solving its convict problem. According to Blainey, Britain had 'prompter' and 'cheaper' solutions than sending its unwanted convicts to Australia, such as building more prisons at home or sending the convicts to Canada or islands in the West Indies—both of which were more viable options than Australia.
A view of the settlement in Norfolk Island from Flagstaff Hill. The supreme quality of the flax and timber to be found on Norfolk Island was just one of several reasons why the English began settling Australia. (Source: State Library of Tasmania)
In trying to explain why the English decided to settle Australia, Blainey suggests that a number of important economic and naval aspects were at play. Australia was considered to be imperative to the expansion of British naval power. English ships could, for instance, safely dock in Botany Bay to unload catchments, undergo repairs, or lie idle during wartime. Furthermore, the superior quality of the timber and flax plants from Norfolk Island, for Blainey, were also attractive “selling points” for the English: ‘In that era Britain’s military strength and an increasing part of her commerce relied on seapower, and flax and ships’ timber were as vital to seapower as steel and oil are today.' In addition to the economic and military reasons that Blainey has outlined, P.J. Marshall also identifies a moral imperative for Britain to expand; that is, 'Empire was a vehicle by which a self-confident people exported their values and culture throughout the world.'
To sum up, it would be fair to say that the British chose to settle Australia not for any single reason but from the interplay of several: first, Australia was a perfectly suitable place to dump Britain's unwanted convicts; second, the flax and timber found on Norfolk Island could be used to bolster Britain's seapower and economy; and, third, expansion meant that Britain could more easily exert its influence throughout the world through the successful exportation of its culture and values. Yet Britain's imperial ambitions in the Pacific was not as peaceful as generally suggested, as P.J. Marshall rightfully identifies: '[there was] almost continuous conquest or violence overseas between 1783 and 1870'. Many injustices were, indeed, committed along the road to imperial expansion in Australia, which will be touched upon in a future blog post.
To sum up, it would be fair to say that the British chose to settle Australia not for any single reason but from the interplay of several: first, Australia was a perfectly suitable place to dump Britain's unwanted convicts; second, the flax and timber found on Norfolk Island could be used to bolster Britain's seapower and economy; and, third, expansion meant that Britain could more easily exert its influence throughout the world through the successful exportation of its culture and values. Yet Britain's imperial ambitions in the Pacific was not as peaceful as generally suggested, as P.J. Marshall rightfully identifies: '[there was] almost continuous conquest or violence overseas between 1783 and 1870'. Many injustices were, indeed, committed along the road to imperial expansion in Australia, which will be touched upon in a future blog post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment