Outpost of Empire

What reasons did Britain have to establish a colony in Australia? Was it the need of a dumping ground for criminals? Or was it something more strategic that resulted in our foundation?

Many primary sources from the mid to late 18^th century refer to the increase in crime, as does Henry Fielding’s 1751 inquiry in London, and the overcrowding that this resulted in for prisons, cited by John Howard in 1777.England’s harsh penal system at the time meant that there were more criminals serving sentences then places to house them. The ideal solution to this problem seemed to be to “establish a colony of convicted felons in any distant parts of the globe…escape might be difficult…they might be enabled to maintain themselves”, as discussed in a report to the House of Commons by Joseph Banks in 1779. As America was no longer a viable option, Australia without any other colonies to object such as in Canada, and with seemingly more favourable conditions then areas such as the West Indies, seemed like a good option. It is important to take into account, however, the great expense of sending not only criminals, but officers, sailors and their families on a seven month journey, which raises the question, was there another aspect to this decision that was more beneficial for the empire? It is possible that using Australia as a place to house criminals was a means to access recourses while improving the trade and pride of the empire, things surely taken into account in such a decision.

Geoffrey Blainey’s “Tyranny of Distance”, however, suggests colonisation of Australia was thought to provide access to both flax and pine trees, both locally and on nearby Norfolk Island, essential for the building of ships, providing materials essential to the growth of the empire. Additionally, the expansion into this new region of the world may have been a strategic move for the empire by allowing for a new port, both allowing naval advantage of a place for boats to refuel, and expanding trade routes with easier access to Asian markets and whaling. It seems logical that in deciding to transport convicts to Australia, other factors such as advantages this would provide for the empire would have been taken into account, and hence it seems as though in was a combination of all of these reasons that resulted in the foundation of Australia. 

An image drawn in aproximatly 1790 of a flax plant found on Norfolk Island. This plant was potentially adventagous to the empire, and its abundance may have been a reason for the commencement of transportation to Australia.

  "Birds & flowers of New South Wales drwan on the spot in 1988,'89 & '90",  John Hunter

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an3187030

Convict Lives

There is much debate over the nature, freedom and conditions of convicts that were transported to Australia from 1788 until 1868. From analysis of primary and secondary sources, we can see that while convicts may have been harshly sentenced, they were given a degree of opportunity and freedom after the completion of their sentences.

Were convicts, as G.A. Woods described them, village Hampdens? Or were they rather a professional criminal class, as implied by Manning Clark? To address this question it is important to understand that those transported cannot be classed into a single category, as they were both men and women from all ages and from across the entire empire, not just from Britain, who had preformed a variety of crimes, ranging from stealing cotton to wilful murder. Clark states that between 1/4 to 1/3 of convicts with the relevant recorded data were repeat offenders, and many were from urban areas, relying greatly on anecdotal evidence that the opinion of Britain’s of the time was that these individuals perused crime as their occupation, making them the "offscourings of mankind". Alternatively, however, Woods suggests that rather than the convicts that were transported being inherently bad, they were victims of both economic exploitation and a particularly harsh, unjust legal system. This is an opinion that was reprised many years later, during the Australian nationalist political period during the 1980's, and is supported by the convict indents of the Pyramus, 1836, and of the Hougoumont, 1868, demonstrating many, particularly the women in the earlier ship, were poor, working low level jobs, and were transported for very minor offences. It should also be noted that the nature of criminals transported would have changed over time, as death sentences were less commonly issued, and imprisonment in Australia was an increasingly appealing option for harsh crimes.

The second question that needs addressing is the degree of freedom that was enjoyed by those in Australia during this period. While it was a penal colony, was Australia equivalent to slavery? Anne Summers points out in 'Damned Whores and God's Police' that while serving their sentences, women were subjected to "systematic abuse" and punishment, as presumably were the men. While conditions of imprisonment on the island may not have been pleasant, their opportunities once released were in many cases much improved from England, where they could break from poverty, and could start a new life and become land owners. Also, all children of convicts were born as free settlers, a right not given to slaves.

Chained convicts being led to prison hulks, possibly prior to transportation to Australia. Convicts depicted as  a criminal class, compared with the other well dressed citizens,  with few freedoms, bound by chains. This can be compared to the opportunities they are given once free in Australia.

"Splindid Jem", 1821, Issac Robert Cruikshank

http://emuseum.anmm.gov.au/code/emuseum.asp?id=17395