Debunking the First Fleet myth.

[old man emu]

I'm setting out on a research project to gather information to support my thesis that the reason why the First Fleet was sent to Australia was due to overcrowding caused by a growing criminal prisoner population being housed in hulks around Britain is a myth. In fact, it is a cover stroy to hide the real reason, which was based on the political and economic situation in Europe following the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763) and the granting of independence to the 13 Colonies in America. (That actually happened on 13 September 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.)

 

The Seven Years War was a massive global conflict fought across five continents that pitted Great Britain and Prussia against France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Spain. Driven by imperial rivalries and European territorial disputes it lead to those countries seeking to establish colonies in the Asia-Pacific Region.

 

My thesis is that Britain, which wanted to secure a base in the Southwest Pacific to keep the French and Russians out, decided to establish a colony on the east coast of Australia, east of the 135th meridian, which had been claimed by Cook for Britain in 1770. An economic factor was that Empress Catherine II of Russia's policies threatened to restrict the sale of hemp. At the time, practically all the hemp and flax required by the Royal Navy for cordage and sailcloth was imported from Russia. Norfolk Island was discovered by Cook in 1774 during his second voyage. He reported that  New Zealand flax (seen as a potential source of materials for rigging ships in the age of sail) grew there, as well as the stautesque Norfolk Pine, from which excellent masts and yard arms could be made for the repair of the ships of the British Navy. That is why, barely six weeks after the First Fleet arrived in Sydney Cove, Governor Arthur Phillip ordered Lieutenant Philip Gidley King to lead a party of 15 convicts and seven free men to take control of Norfolk Island, and to prepare for its commercial development. Norfold Island is probablythe only place where the term terra nullus in fact applied.  Archaeological investigation suggests that in the 13th or 14th century the island was settled by East Polynesian seafarers, but human occupation appears to have ceased at least a few hundred years before Europeans arrived.

 

I think that the establishment of a colony on the east coast of Australia was for a clearly politoco-economic reason, and not in order to ease the discomfort of criminals. The idea that free people would travel halfway around the World into the unknown to start a colony from scratch with no guarantee of success would not provide the workforce needed by the government. So, the government gathered up a group of people who were compellable to do as directed.

 

Those people were found in the hulks. Horror stories have been spread about life in the hulks, but they, too, may be a mixture of reality and myth. Conditions were probably no better nor worse than in prisons on the land. Due to growing poverty of free people drawn to the cities, for men who grew destitute and faced the workhouse, life as a convict was measured out against the negatives of offending. After all, prisoners were provided with three meals a day. They left the confines of the hulks regularly to work on govrnment projects. They mastered trades and learnt to read and write. These convicts, already sentenced to transportation, provided a more competent type than could have been drawn from land prisons. Nevertheless, government officials made every attempt to make life on board as punitive as possible. Daily routines were more naval than penal.

 

For some information about life in the hulks, here;s a link: https://staffblogs.le.ac.uk/carchipelago/2017/10/10/a-day-in-the-life-convicts-on-board-prison-hulks/

[rgmwa]

Seems entirely reasonable. The Dutch weren’t interested in Australia but the French were. 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

My Irish Great Great Great Grandfather probably knew all about that, in the 1830s. He was transported to the Great Southern Land and slaved till he was made a free man in 1850. He proceeded to the Parramatta Female Factory to choose a partner, then acquired some land in Cooma NSW. The rest is history. Offspring are everywhere on the East Coast and inland. A few became famous ... even me, I discovered the Feast and Famine Variable.

[facthunter]

Can we call you "Spud"?. Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

in the 1830s.

By that time the British were well established. It was a different place than it was in 1788. Wool was a major export and the several localities were pretty close to self-sufficiency. One of my Irish ancestors came as a convict about 1834 and was assigned to a property in the Upper Hunter District. After he had served his sentence he made his way back to Sydney and went into business and beginning a family that did alright for itself. Since a lot of convicts were transported for what we would now consider trivial offences, once they completed their sentences they went on to make good lives for themselves. 

 

However, talking about what happened post-1800 is a red herring to the original point of the topic, which is the discovery of the true reason for the establishment of a presence here.

[pmccarthy]

I think most historians agree with OME.

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

I think most historians agree with OME.

How can we have a half decent argument if you say stuff like this?

[nomadpete]

Until now (thanks, OME) I have never given it much thought. Except maybe something didn't quite seem right about the populat hulk-convict story. I never believed the Brit government would go to all that trouble and expense just to carry out a social experiment in prison reform.

[old man emu]

12 hours ago, nomadpete said:

a social experiment in prison reform.

There were no experiments in prison reform at that time. The call for prison reform wasn't heard until the mid 19th Century. The use of hulks was a convenient way to house prisoners without the need to go to the expense of building new gaols on land. The hulks were ships that could still float, but were condemned for use at sea. I thinbk, too that we don't have an idea of how big those hulks were and the available space to accommodate people. Also those prisoners provided a cheap source of labour to carry out tasks for the Government on the docks of England.

 

Did you know that hulks were used in Sydney Harbour to hold the worst convicts? As in England, these convicts were taken off the hulks in chain gangs to do the more arduous work. I am of the opinion that most well-behaved convicts moved about the colony unfettered by chains. The pictures in the history books of convicts in chain gangs no doubt depict these hulk residents. 

 

I hope that you have used that link I posted to get a bit of truth about the use of hulks in Britain.

[facthunter]

What about the Incredible Hulk.?  Also after the USA broke away from England Another place to take the So called BAD people had to be found as a matter of urgency.. The Irony was that Here became a better place than back home and wasn't Gov. Macquarie admonished for doing some of that? Norfolk Island was also a Penal Colony Like Port Arthur in Tasmania.  the Natives looked after some of the escaped convicts I believe. Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Another place to take the So called BAD people had to be found as a matter of urgency.

That is the myth I am attacking. Britain had plenty of old ships it could use as prisons. They had hulks in many ports around England. A few more would not have mattered. Also, the hulks were not run by the Government. The running of the hulks was contracted out to private entrprise. Those operating prisons in hulks had to meet minimum standards of care. I'm not sure if the convicts were hired out to do work for the government, or if that work was simply part of their sentence to hard labour. The roadblock in the system was that Courts were sentencing people to transportation which meant that once convicted a person had to be held until a destination was available.  The government was unable to send more convicts to the colony until word arrived from Governor Arthur Phillip that the new colony had survived.

 

Concentrating the debate on the crowding in the hulks distracts from my thesis that the reason an effort was made to establish a presence in Australia was political. That presence was aimed at preventing other European powers from gaining footholds in new lands. If Britain colonised Australia, it provided locations for naval bases and the possible opportunity for the production of materials needed to maintain ships. Those ships could be used to block the activities of other powers.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

We already know Cook observed Venus in Tahiti as a guise to setting out to the Great Southern Land to claim it for England. The "politics" was evident even then. So it shouldn't be surprising that politics played it's part in the transportation of convicts to a far away land. We also know the French were cruising off the East Coast at the time. 

 

Is "politics" the right word? It seems like "land grab" is more appropriate.

 

I just wish the Poms had not depleted Australia of all the Red Cedar trees, there was none left for repairing antique Cedar furniture in the 1900s when I was dabbling in selling old furniture.

[Kyle Communications]

OME hypotheticals are fine and are good to promote some critical thinking about what happened in history...the problem with hypothesizing is just that...you need proof...like govt documents prision records  etc and trying to egt them now from that long ago would be a hard exercise I would think.

History is written by the winners not the losers and unless there was some actual proof history is normally taken to be the truth. It obviously sometimes isnt but it seems to me you are having a argument just like if the Yunger Dryus happened or not or even if there is a second Sphinx like they are hypothesizing now.

Or even that there was a noah and a ark.

Good luck with your efforts