Responses to GOLD

Up until 1851 Australia had been a group of colonies that by in large generated all their wealth from farming and in particular cattle.  Squatters dominated the vast tracks of land throughout and had much political influence.  What conspired in the following two decades changed Australia forever.  The discovery of gold in New South Wales, Victoria and then Western Australia had dramatic consequences for Australia.  

The story of gold in Australia is best told through analysis of modern day Victoria. Historian Richard Broome remarked that it was rare in history to see a society so radically transformed as Port Phillip was from the year 1851 onwards.  What had been an illegal settlement, Portland, founded by the Henty family in 1834 was originally a vast track of uninhabited land excellent for grazing sheep.  A settlement on the Yarra was eventually founded by John Pasco Fawkner and was used primarily for grazing sheep.  The growth of Melbourne was slow, many colonists came from Britain, as well as Van Diemon’s Land, New South Wales and the Swan Colony with an intent to make use of the vast amounts of land available that had been described by explores such as John Batman as superior to any they had ever seen.

What transpired in 1851, following the discovery of gold in a Warrandyte creek changed the path of the colony of Victoria forever.  David Hill described how Victorian towns were deserted, as men ventured to the central Victorian goldfields in search of their fortunes.  Likewise, Governor Latrobe talked of a mania amongst the people at the news of a discovery of gold.  At the time of its unearthing, the population of Victoria was well below 80,000 with Sydney being the dominant city in Australia.  However, as Hill points out, by 1860, Victoria’s population had reached 500,000 and accounted for over half Australia’s total population.   The population boom in Victoria was fuelled by immigrants from across the globe, with huge numbers of colonists coming from Britain, California, other parts of Australia and China in search of their fortunes. 

This original artwork by Robert Russell depicts Collins Street in 1844, it shows economically the state of Melbourne prior to the discovery of gold.  (Source: State Library of Victoria)

With the coming of new settlers, came new ideas.  Diggers had, according to Broome, come to Victoria with aspirations of freedom, independence, a better life and citizenship.   Likewise, there was a desire for an increase to workers’ rights which included the eight hour day.  The growth in population and expansion of industries other than farming meant individuals sought representation in the Parliament of Victoria.  At the time however, squatters had undue influence, as voting power was given to those who owned land. Historian, G. R. Quaife makes the point that issues arose in colonial society as to the disproportionate amounts of land allocated to squatters and the lack of political rights given to the diggers.  The allocation of land to squatters was, as Broome describes an important reason for the Eureka rebellion 1854. 

This wood engraving from 1888 depicts the diggers at Bakery Hill swearing allegance to the Southern Cross.  Led by Peter Lalor, the Eureka rebellion precipitated political reform in firstly the colony of Victoria and then throughout Australia. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

By the mid 19^th century land ownership symbolized freedom from wage slavery and allowed people to be self employed and not at the mercy of the employer as was often the case in Britain.   Miners had growing frustrations aimed at administrators who increased the cost of mining licenses.  A clear reference to this is made in the oath of the Ballarat Reform League that states ‘taxation without representation is tyranny’.  Not only did administrators make decisions on behalf of miners that had no political representation, but they did it at times when gold discoveries were becoming harder for diggers, resulting in economic hardships and frustrations.  These factors led to one of the most symbolic events in Australian history, The Eureka Rebellion.

This postcard from 1907, depicts the full effect the gold rush had on Victoria.  This image of Collins street looking East shows the level of development which occured because of gold, and likewise depicts new technologies which came to the City of Melbourne such as the tramways.  (Source: State Library of Victoria)

The legacies of the gold rushes in Eastern Australia in the mid 19th century were profound.  Economically, gold saw increased British confidence in the region, resulting in large amounts of colonial investment in the colonies.  By the 1880’s Melbourne had become one of the most prosperous cities in the world.  It was known colloquially as ‘Marvelous Melbourne’ and grand infrastructure and public works mirrored the opulence of the city.  Buildings such as the State Library and Melbourne Town Hall reflect the vast amounts of money being generated by the colony during the latter part of the 19^th century.  Likewise, political advancement mirrored the growth and modernization of the city, with manhood suffrage extended to Victorian males.  Similarly land was taken off squatters and sold to diggers allowing private enterprise to prosper in the colonies.

Gold however, led to the first racial discrimination in Australia.  This was towards the Chinese who had come in search of their fortunes.  Chinese success, combined with a fear of the yellow peril and cheap Chinese labour fuelled anti-Chinese governmental policies and a hatred of the Chinese amongst diggers.  These sentiments were increasingly portrayed throughout the latter stages of the 19^th century with The Bulletin and Boomerang newspapers constantly including anti Chinese cartoons.  These public sentiments, were translated into governmental policies, firstly in 1855 and then in the form of the Natal Act of 1897 and the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. 

Frontier or History Wars:

Early settlement of Australia was for generations historically interpreted as a triumph of the British colonizers who came to an unknown land and ultimately created the nation of Australia.  The traditional Australian interpretation of its early pastoral history saw many tribute and recognize the early squatters and farmers who gradually harnessed the harsh Australian bush through illegal squatting and use of government land grants.  This view of Australia’s past casually ignored the Australian Aboriginals who had established themselves thousands of years prior to white settlement across the entire Australian continent.  This Australian narrative was popularized in Australian culture by poets and writers such as Henry Lawson and Banjo Paterson.   The Bulletin, a popular magazine in Australian society by the turn of the nineteenth century, carved out what became the Bushman Legend and cemented the story in Australian society for generations.  As with the more conservative pioneer legend, the bushman legend ignored the Aboriginals who were as much a part of the Australian frontier as the early settlers.

This painting by S.T. Gill, entitled 'Bushman's Hut' from 1864 shows a typical scene from early Australian colonial life.  This image demonstrates the view of the bushman legend or pioneer legend and another of white superiority.  (Source: State Library of Victoria)

Not only did the bushman and pioneer legends overlook the Aboriginals but they failed to acknowledge the violence which existed across much of the Australian frontier.  This hostility was a conflict fought between Aboriginals and white settlers.  Historian Reynolds argues the violence accounted for over 2,000 white deaths and approximately 20,000 Aboriginal deaths.  The battles were well known to the people at the time, with newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald reporting skirmishes on the outskirts of Sydney.  Likewise, conflict was depicted in artworks by prominent colonial painters such as S.T. Gill.  Such was the threat posed to early settlers, historian Broom notes that some huts were built with slits in the walls so riffles could be fired from them in the event of an ambush.  However, despite this early recognition much of the violence was ignored by early Australian historians.

The reason for this neglect was primarily because it tarnished the achievements of the colonial settlers.  Early themes of mateship and determination which permeated throughout the works of Lawson and Patterson, and was a hallmark of the Bulletin would have been overshadowed by atrocities which occurred on the frontier. 

It was this national identity of Australia and its people that was challenged in Reynolds’ book ‘the other side of the frontier’.   Reynolds’ made it clear in his work that many in Australian culture wished to forget the wrongs of the past and were ashamed of the actions of colonial Australians.  A notable example was former Prime Minister John Howard who wished history was taught the way it used to be, with the achievements, rather than wrongs celebrated.  He went further and described how Australia today was filled with black armband history as revisionist histories such as those by Henry Reynolds, condemned early achievements of pioneers.  This interpretation of the past, by historians such as Reynolds challenged what many had been taught for generations in school and at university.   It was this backlash by some groups in Australian society that was feared by many earlier historians and was hence part of the reason for a previous lack of acknowledgment of these events.

Debate today still exists over the nature of the conflict on the frontier.  Assessing the level of violence remains a constant element of historical dispute.  Some historians such as Windschuttle, argue the figures presented by Reynolds cannot be considered accurate as there are no historical records of the number of Aboriginals killed.  Similarly, it is often disputed as to who should be held responsible for the killings and the historical injustice that took place.  In many cases, violence was not authorized by colonial governments but was the response of settlers to Aboriginal vandalism of property which included the killing of sheep and other livestock.  Likewise, a case could be argued that atrocities were committed on both sides of the frontier with instances of Aboriginals ambushing, and killing white settlers.  Ultimately, it can be concluded that injustices were committed by both Europeans and Aboriginals.  Historical debates on this issue, have led to some, such as Reynolds, to conclude the conflict be added to the Australian War Memorial.  

This photograph taken in 1900 shows a Victorian battallion prior to departure for the Boer War.  It is only official wars fought under the banner of Australia which can be included in the Australian War Memorial. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

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. 

Europeans and the Australian Environment

To the Europeans, such as Joseph Banks who first sighted and began to document the Australian landscape and what it held, it was clear that what was found on the shore of New Holland was like nothing they had ever before encountered.  Despite the vast differences, Europeans attempted to create a new society in the South which had all the hallmarks of what they had left behind.  W.C. Wentworth’s description of Australia as ‘a new Britannia in another world’ is testament to these aims.

Expansion into the interior by European farmers and squatters saw distinct changes to the Australian landscape.  Thomas Livingston Mitchell describes in detail, while en route to the Gulf of Carpentaria the negative impacts of white settlement.  He notes a decrease in levels of fauna in forests and in particular makes reference to a fall in the number of Aboriginals in regions once dominated by tribes.  Mitchell attributes this decline, to a reduction in management of forestry undergrowth.  He notes that previously, Aboriginals had undertaken a controlled system of undergrowth burn off which had subsequently been banned by governmental officials.  This decision, according to Miller had made the land unsurpassable in parts.  This account, where a lack of European knowledge towards the Australian landscape is evident, is a common theme throughout colonial history where attempts were made to apply European agricultural practices to the Australian landscape.

Frederick McCubbin's, 'down on his luck' (1895), is a famous example of colonial artwork from the Heidelberg School of Art.  The image depicts the hard times faced by the Australian bushman.  Images such shaped the narrative of early Australia and were very popular amongst Asutralians at the time. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

The untamed nature of the Australian landscape, described inadvertently by Mitchell in his account was where Australia’s first legends were born.  Historian Hirst suggests that it was the actions of these early pioneers that were revered in Australian culture.  The pioneer legend itself was adopted throughout the late nineteenth century by prominent authors such as Pattinson and Lawson.  With artists such as McCubbin and Streeton painting some of the most famous works depicting these early Australians.  This Australian bushman and pioneer legend gave Australians something that was inherently unique to Australia.  It presented Australia as a society that was different from the ‘mother country’. 

The strength of the pioneer legend came from within Australian culture throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century’s.  Many had come to Australia as they were forced out of their homelands because of family issues, famines, times of economic hardship or political oppression.  People came to Australia in search of a better life.  These early stories of the Australian pioneers gave many hopes that hard work would see eventual success not possible in Europe. 

Opinion of this national narrative changed throughout the twentieth century.  The reason for these alterations cannot be attributed to one factor; however there are several influences which caused the modification.  The first was simply that it was developed and ultimately replaced by alternate, more contemporary legends.  A notable example is Charles Bean’s ANZAC legend, where soldiers displayed innately Australian characteristics of courage, mateship and sacrifice while under fire in World War One.  The second reason was primarily because there was no reference to negative aspects of pioneer history such as the frontier violence which took place in colonial times between Aboriginal Australians and English settlers.  Such was the ferocity of this conflict, that some including historian Blainey have called for those killed to be recognized in the Australian War Memorial.  This conflict was likened to genocide by historian Reynolds and tarnished the legacy of the colonial settlers.  Additionally, the environmental destruction documented by historian Gaynor is a further cause for conjecture when it comes to the legacy of the early bushman. 

This wood engraving from 1876, entitled 'a skirmish near Creen Creek, Queensland' depicts the ferocious nature of frontier conflict.  It was scenes such as this that were not included in the early national narrative, and thus led to the move away from the pioneer legend in Australian culture. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

Australia and The Enlightenment

 

The Age of Discovery began with the invention of the Caravel in the 15^th century, with legendary voyages undertaken by Portuguese and Spanish explorers.  What drove these navigators was commerce and the prospect of untold overseas riches.  By the mid 17^th century, Portugal and Spain were profiting from commercial trade between their colonies in South America and Asia.  At this time, there was a belief that vast amounts of wealth could be attained from the unknown Great Southern Land.  This idea is mirrored in the instructions allocated to Abel Tasman, by the Dutch East India Company.   Tasman was ordered to locate the land to the South of Batavia and take possession of what he found, as it was believed commercial gains could be expected from the territory.  What Tasmen eventially located, was modern day Tasmania and New Zealand.

S.J. Jones' glass lantern slide of Cook's famous ship 'The Endeavour' (date unknown), depicts the ship off the coast on New Zealand.  Following his navigation of the East coast of Australia, Cook preceded to chart he islands of New Zealand which had been discovered by Abel Tasman decades before. (Source: State Library of Victoria)

Conversely,  Cook who famously mapped the East Coast of Australia was ordered to the Great Southern Land (at that time known as New Holland) to do so for purposes of science rather than solely for profit.  An analysis of the orders handed down by the Admiralty show a great emphasis on Cook noting in detail the flora and fauna present, as well as the climate and fertility of the soil. 

These orders demonstrate the impact The Age of Enlightenment had had on English notables at the time.  Such detailed analysis of the globe was a direct result of the Enlightenment period, as it brought people to challenge conventional norms and seek more knowledge about the earth.  Historian Clark argues that at the time many felt they knew nothing about the world as the Age of Enlightenment had caused many to doubt the role God played in the world and its creation.  People sought new answers to questions about the globe that had previously been attributed to the work of God.  

Throughout the documentation from the Royal Society, it is clear that an innate belief existed that hostility towards the native people was unjustifiable and essentially a crime.  Likewise, the society suggested to Cook that orders should be given to his men that ensured they were hospitable towards the natives and warned of the power of English weaponry.



This detailed description of what should be done once at New Holland suggested the English had a large interest in the Continent.  However, based on this evidence alone it cannot be concluded that Cook’s expedition was solely for scientific means.  Former Premier of New South Wales Sir Joseph Carruthers, in his biography of the life of Captain Cook, written 150 years after his death suggested there were further reasons for the voyage to the South.  Currathers argued Cook was sent secretly to New Holland for several reasons, firstly to prevent the French from establishing a new colony to make up for the loss of their prized Canadian possession.  Secondly he conveyed a view that Britain was in search of colonies to replace those lost in the Americas.  There was also a belief at the time, amongst some Englishmen that land to the South had untold riches, Dalrymple, the hydrographer of the British Navy believed New Holland had a population of 50 million, and was far wealthier than the American Colonies.  This potential for commercial and military advantages can therefore be argued as motivating factors for the Cook expedition.

This drawing by Thomas Medland from 1789, is one of the earliest European images of the Aboriginal Australians, the Aboriginals are presented in a manner more closely associated with Greek or Roman mythology.  (Source: State Library of Victoria)

Included in Cook’s account of his voyage to New Holland was the earliest documentation of the Australian native.  Cook reflected on the Australian Aboriginals in a positive manner.  He was impressed by their physique and gentle nature, and commented on traits such as the shelters they had erected across the coastline.   Cook’s descriptions of the natives are in stark contrast to interpretations made by latter Europeans of the Aboriginal Australians.  Later views entailed much hostility, as Aboriginal Australians were described as savages by many early settlers. This negative perception of Australian natives permeates throughout Australian history and in many respects still exists in Australian society today.