The Botany Bay Debate

Evaluate the differing explanations of historians for the British government s decision to establish a colony in New South Wales.

History is based on historians interpretations of sources that remain from that time. First hand

testimony and records that give direct access to the past are referred to as primary sources. These

sources have not continued to exist by chance. The reason they have survived is that someone deemed

them worthy of preservation. However there are some that survive by accident. These sources restrict

and shape an historian s interpretation, however, different historians still have conflicting ideas about

certain events in history. These differences in opinion are the result of the fragmentary and selective

nature of the sources available. People have a great deal of scope to interpret sources differently.

History cannot speak for itself; historians speak for it. Therefore historians put forward their own

interpretation of history, as they understand it from the documents available.

One event in Australian history that is of particular interest to historians is the decision made by the

British government in seventeen eighty-eight to establish a colony in New South Wales (NSW), which

was the name for the eastern half of the Australian continent. The range of primary sources relating to

this event is very limited and fragmentary, but historians rely on these to draw their conclusions from.

The answers to the questions raised are not explicit in these documents, so there is a certain amount of

interpretation and imagination needed in order to find them. This is where different histories emerge.

From the nineteen fifties, Australian historians have been engaged in a debate called the Botany Bay

Debate. The debate involves the differing interpretations of the colonisation of Australia by the British

government in seventeen eighty-eight. Historians agree that the British government decided to

colonise NSW in seventeen eighty-eight, however, they disagree about why this transpired.

There are three main interpretations of the decision made in seventeen eighty-eight. The first is what is

known as the Convict Dumping Motive . Many historians have this interpretation, and it was the

generally accepted version until the nineteen fifties, when this debate began to form. The essence of

this interpretation is that there were surplus convicts in England, the gaols were full, as were the

hulks, and a place was needed to dump the prisoners. The second interpretation is called the Trade

Motive . An economist by the name of K. M. Dallas put forward the idea that Botany bay, and

subsequently Port Jackson were intended to be crucial ports for four major British trading enterprises.

Thirdly, the Strategic Motive , which is closely related to the Trade Motive, was developed in the

nineteen sixties by an historian named Geoffrey Blainey. His interpretation includes the strategic

location of Botany Bay for trading, as well as the benefits of Norfolk island, just off the coast, in terms

of mast timber and flax plants.

These are the differing interpretations of why the British government decided to colonise NSW when it

did. The question really is, was the colonisation of NSW an event in British domestic history, or British

Emperial history? Was it a domestic policy decision or a foreign policy decision? This is essentially the

crux of the debate.

Until the nineteen fifties, there was no debate. The enduring view was that NSW was colonised

because of the crisis convict situation in Britain.

Convicts were sent to America between seventeen eighteen and seventeen seventy-six. However, the

American Revolution ceased transportation to the American colonies. A place was needed to dump

the convicts, and Botany Bay was chosen.

A key historian of the inter-war period, Eris O Brien published a book called The Foundation of

Australia in nineteen thirty-seven. He believed that there is no shred of evidence that if the gaols of

England were not unwontedly full, the colony would ever have been founded when it was (O Brien,

1937). In seventeen eighty-eight NSW was a penal colony. The first fleet contained convicts, their

warders, and British military. The second and third fleets were similar. Free settlers did not arrive in

large numbers until the eighteen twenties.

From studying the obtainable sources and documents, there are many references to the convict

situation in England. In a letter from the Attorney General to Lord Sydney dated January the 13th,

seventeen eighty five, he mentioned the plan put together by Sir George Young, that outlined some of

the advantages of establishing a settlement in NSW. The Attorney General admitted that he did not

know if such a scheme would work, but said that it appears to be the most likely method of

effectually disposing of convicts, the number of which requires the immediate interference of

Government (Martin (ed.) 1975, p.18). Not only did they need a place to dump convicts, but loyalists

to the crown in America were also seeking refuge out of the country after the American Revolution.

The convict dumping theory has its merits, but if the only purpose of colonising Botany Bay was to

dump convicts, then why was Botany Bay chosen over somewhere that is closer to Europe, and not

such a distance to travel? Also, why was more than one colony established? There is evidence in

Arthur Phillip s instructions from the King and his advisers on April 25th, seventeen eighty-seven,

that they wished the colonisers to go to the islands off the coast, that were not under another European

country s rule. It was [their] will and pleasure that as soon as either of [the] vessels can be spared

with safety...[to] detach one or both of them for [this] purpose (Historical Records of New South

Wales, p.88). A ship was sent out to Norfolk Island just after landing at Botany Bay to establish a

colony. Phillip Gidley King, Esq. was appointed Superintendent and Commandant of Norfolk Island.

In his instructions from Arthur Phillip Esq., on the 12th of February seventeen eighty-eight, Arthur

Phillip says: after having taken the necessary measures for securing yourself and people...you are

immediately to proceed to the cultivation of the flax-plant (Historical Records of New South Wales,

p.137).

When thinking historically, it is very important not to think with hindsight. Just because Botany Bay

was a penal colony, and convicts were transported there, does not mean that that was the sole purpose

of the colonisation. Perhaps there were other factors in the decision to chose Botany Bay, but they did

not eventuate, or prove as possible as they thought. This is a key factor in Dallas interpretation of the

events, he believes that other factors were involved, namely trade factors, but that unfortunately for

Britain s economy, they did not transpire.

In the early nineteen fifties, an economist by the name of K. M. Dallas said that the explanation for the

colonisation of NSW was trade. Botany Bay (and later Port Jackson) was intended to be a crucial port

for four major British trading enterprises. These are, the Fur trade, the South American trade, the

Whaling and Sealing trade, and the China trade.

The fur trade in British Columbia or Canada, which was a very rich and profitable trade could be

made use of by Britain, suggested Dallas, by shipping the furs down across the Pacific from

Vancouver, down to Sydney to be trans-shipped to Europe. As it was otherwise very difficult to get

the furs shipped to Britain. This did not eventuate, but that does not mean that it was not thought of at

the time. Because something did not transpire in history, does not mean that the idea was not

influential then.

As early as 23rd August, seventeen eighty-three, an American loyalist from the War of Independence,

by the name of James Maria Mantra composed a proposal for the settlement of NSW. In it he makes

mention of trading issues, saying: should this settlement be made, we may enter into a commerce

that would render our trade to China, hitherto extremely against us, very favorable (Martin (ed.) 1978,

p.11). He also goes on to say: the Aleutian and Foxes islands...abound with the choicest furs, lie

nearly north of New South Wales. It is from these islands the Russians get the most and best of their

furs, with which they carry on a very lucrative trade by land with the Chinese (Martin (ed.) 1978,

p.11). Mantra believed that the situation of NSW would enable the British to carry on that trade with

great proficiency.

There is quite a bit of evidence in the documents that trade issues were considered in relation to the

settling of NSW. However, there is not solid evidence that the reason that the British government

decided to colonise NSW was for any other than to dump convicts. However, even the possibility of

these trade advantages may have influenced the government s decision, when deciding where to

dump the convicts. There is no way to prove either is true, or not, but there is certainly evidence that

the Government was aware of the possibilities concerning trade that NSW held, so there is reason to

suggest that it is a possibility that trade was one of the factors that affected the decision made by the

British government in seventeen eighty-eight, to colonise NSW.

The Strategic Motive, is perhaps the most complex, involving a multitude of factors, all combined into

one interpretation. The economic historian, Geoffrey Blainey put forward the idea that when making

the decision to settle NSW, the British government was thinking of a lot more than just a convict

dumping ground. Namely the location of Botany Bay strategically, for such things as trade and war

purposes. The major element of this idea though, was Blainey s belief that the pines and the flax plants

on Norfolk island were of major importance to the British at the time of the decision in seventeen

eighty-eight. Captain Cook reported on the pines and flax, when he went past the island. He related

back to the British that the pines were of very suitable quality for mast timber. Also that the flax plants

were of a fine quality, and were found in abundance on Norfolk Island. The fact that the actual

enterprise failed was less important than their initial promise. There is evidence that this topic had

been referred to as early as seventeen eighty-five, in Sir George Young s plan, titled The Plan. Young

mentioned the benefits of cultivating the flax plant, and suggested that it may be obtained at a much

cheaper rate then those materials [they] at present [got] from Russia (Martin (ed.) 1978, p.19). He also

went on to imply that Russia [might] perhaps at some future period think it [Russia s] interest to

prohibit [their] trade for such articles (Martin (ed.) 1978, pp.19-20)., and the difficulties that arise

from such a case are too obvious to mention (Martin (ed.) 1978, p.20). Meaning that England would be

left without essential naval equipment. It is then understandable that the British government would

perhaps have given this issue a lot of consideration, and historians would be unable to discount this

issue as being an essential element of this discussion. This theory has been well thought out, and

includes a wide range of elements that could have affected the British government s decision. It is

advantageous also, as it takes into account the issues of the time, and puts the event in the eighteenth

century England. Which of course is from whence the decision came from, and allows a person to

think about history not as a past event, and it in terms of what eventuated, instead to think of it as how

it would possibly have been thought about at the time, which includes ideas and hopes, that may have

failed in the undertaking.

When faced with historical problems such as this, it is useful to have an awareness of the background

to the time of the events in dispute. A clear understanding of the events cannot be had, unless one

looks not in retrospect, but in the same mindset as the people at the time. In hindsight, it would be

easy to say that NSW was colonised so as to provide a convict dumping ground. As that is

essentially what occurred, however, that does not mean that that is what was intended.

As the documents recording the principal discourse regarding the settling are so limited and

incomplete, it is not really possible to disregard any plausible interpretation, so long as the facts are

correct. All three of the aforementioned interpretations are in my mind, plausible, and entirely

possible. This debate is far from over, and it is doubtful that it ever will be, historians can only offer

their own understanding and hopefully it will broaden our perspective on the issue as a whole.

Bibliography

Matra s Proposal in Ged Martin (ed.) The Founding of Australia, (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger) 1978,

pp. 9-18.

Young s Plan in Ged Martin (ed.) The Founding of Australia, pp. 18-21.

Heads of a Plan in Ged Martin (ed.) The Founding of Australia, pp. 22-29.

Governor Phillip s First Commission in Historical Records of New South Wales, 1 (2) pp. 24-25.

Governor Phillip s Second Commission in Historical Records of New South Wales, 1 (2) pp. 61-67.

Act of Parliament Establishing the Colony in Historical Records of New South Wales, 1 (2) pp. 67-70.

Phillip s Instructions in Historical Records of New South Wales, 1 (2) pp. 84-91.

Governor Phillip s First Dispatch to Lord Sydney in Historical Records of New South Wales, 1 (2) pp.

121-139.

Lecture The Botany Bay Debate , Dr Lenore Layman, S181 Different Histories, March 6 2000.