Outpost of Empire

In the decades that followed the initial colonization of Sydney Cove, Australians had accepted the idea the nation was settled initially as in effect a dumping ground for British convicts.  This theory remained somewhat unchallenged by both Australian and British historians for generations.  Arguments about the state of British prisons, the loss of the American colonies as a place to take convicts and the notion the earliest settlements of Australia were indeed dominated by British convicts, prevented any conceivable challenge occurring in relation to the reasons for the formation of Australia.  However, Geoffrey Blainey’s work in the 1960’s entitled; The Tyranny of Distance directly challenged this conventional history.  The text raised significant alternate arguments about the reasons for the settlement at Sydney Cove and the eventual colonization of Australia.



This undated image of a Tasmanian 'chain gang' depicts the treatment of those who were transported to Australia.  Convicts were used for their labour and constructed many early colonial buildings, an example is the Macquarie Fort which is depicted below. (Source: State Library of Victoria)



Blainey concluded that there were in fact several reasons why the ‘dumping ground’ theory could not be the sole purpose of the colonization of Australia.  Blainey firstly suggested Australia was indeed too far away to make the transfer of convicts economically viable.  Likewise, Blainey made the point that convicts could have easily been settled in an isolated part of the Northern Hemisphere that would have saved Britain both the time and money needed to transport prisoners to Sydney Cove.  By the late 18^th century, the dire state of the British prison system, outlined by John Howard suggests that it was indeed an urgent problem that needed an affordable and fast solution, thus making the dumping ground theory more unlikely.

In addition, military reasons were a further purpose for the creation of the Australian Colonies.  Blainey notes that reports from Captain James Cook describe firstly ample amounts of flax and pine available to aid in the construction of ships on Norfolk Island and secondly that Botany Bay could be a suitable place for a naval base.  At the time of Cook’s reports, Britain faced threats to its overseas trading empire from European nations such as France and Spain.  Consequentially, as Blainey points out it meant strengthening the defense of trade routes in British India, China and the Dutch East Indies was a necessity.  Historian R.C Mills makes the point that at the time of British territorial acquisitions in Australia, Britain had established military outposts in strategic parts of the world, such as in Gibraltar to aid in the control of the world’s oceans and maintain the empire, therefore making Blainey’s argument stronger as it is the case Britain settled areas purely for strategic military purposes. 

This wood engraving of Fort Macquarie in Sydney Harbour, dated 1862 demonstrates the Australian colonies never became the vital strategic defense of the empire outlined in early accounts by Governor Phillip.  Unlike the fortifications in Singapore, this defensive structure was not designed to administer and defend the colonies in East Asia.  (Source: State Library of Victoria)

Similarly, this idea is supported by Governor Phillip who suggested Port Jackson was indeed the finest harbor in the world where ships could sail with perfect security.  Such is Phillip’s emphasis on the benefits of the Harbor, it cannot be concluded the settlement was purely designed as an open air prison, as the gains experienced because of the harbor where only seen when it was used for commercial and military purposes.  Additionally, the notion that Cook himself was sent on a secret mission to map and ultimately claim the Great Southern Land suggests Britain had a clear interest in the entire island for its value militarily and financially as it is difficult to argue the establishment of an open air prison would be something that constituted secrecy. 

Although history does not show an establishment of a large naval base in Sydney and that Australia was in the early years, until 1830 essentially a financial burden on the empire to say the pretext for its colonial creation was purely about housing convict criminals is unsubstantiated.  There are several reasons why these two desires of the Australian colonies did not eventuate.  The first of these is that latter acquisitions such as Singapore and Hong Kong proved to be far more accessible and viable defensive outposts.  Similarly as historian Mills suggests, the capture of the South African colony, from the Dutch in 1795 meant there was little need for a stopover in Australia for ships trading in East Asia and British India.