Click the logo to go back to the main page
note: this is the last chapter of the website book, the blackheath connection.
An Australasian quadrangular trade pattern:
Further
on James Duncan of Blackheath: The Blackheath Connection: (The beginning
of
Phase Two): Duncan Campbell's last years: Varieties of business:
Campbell
relinquishes the hulks: Towards the death of Duncan Campbell: Hulks administration from 1800: The
death of
Duncan Campbell in 1803: 1803: after Campbell's death: Afterword
The Blackheath
Connection
Chapter
46
An
Australasian quadrangular trade pattern:
It
should be asked, why London merchants with East India connections India
did not
interest themselves more in sending goods to Sydney, either from London
or
India? Among many reasons are costs, deliberate restrictions on the
trade of
the colony which favoured the charter of the East India Company, the
risks of
sailing an ex-Sydney leg of
the
voyage in unprofitable ballast. Government actively encouraged convict
transportation to Sydney, but not trade. A trade system taking in
London,
Sydney and China/India did not
firm
until after 1810, and received no large stimulus until after 1824, when
the
Australian Agricultural Company began operations, by which time, the
colony's
legal system was more convenient for financial claims being settled in a
civil
court.
 PayPal - safe and secure |
|
If you value the information
posted here, |
However, by 1807, the New South Wales sheep breeder John
Macarthur had
visualized an Australasian quadrangular trade pattern with one leg at
Sydney. ([1])
Another leg was in Fiji, another at Canton, another at Calcutta;
although not
embracing New Zealand. This pattern became reality, and can be used to
explain
much but certainly not all Australasian trading till the 1840s (by when
New
Zealand was settled). In terms of broader maritime history, and in order
to
explain the trading pattern of convict ships captain (or their
employers) this
quadrangle should be placed within a larger quadrangle, with legs at
London,
Sydney, "the Pacific" and India-China. Within this larger quadrangle,
the chief
inheritors of the Blackheath
Connection
remain blurrily apparent. They were the London Missionary Society, which
helped
to promote trading in Pacific artefacts, as one of their early
treasurers,
Hardcastle, had suggested.
The quadrangular trade pattern was not wholly
original - some of the shape had been visualized by William Richards, by
Anthony Calvert, and also by an associate of John Macarthur, his "family
banker, Walter Stephenson Davidson. Davidson had examined NSW by 1803,
then
went "to the east", where among other things, he, probably, arranged
some
regular exporting to Australia. Unfortunately, the little known of
Davidson
falls into the same basket as ignorance on another point of trade in NSW
colonial history - it is difficult to find the main NSW tea importers,
or who
were their associates in the east, or indeed, anything to confirm what
little information
can be found. ([2])
Davidson's sister Anne married a little known
Asia
trader, Thomas Coats. Davidson's first wife (married 1822) was his
cousin, Ann
Mathison, a grand-daughter of Sir Walter Farquhar. Some Davidson relatives, Leslie, (a Leslie married
one of
his sisters), and several Leslies became NSW pioneers; but one William
Leslie
worked in the east for Dent and Co. (a cotton and opium dealer which by one uncertain report was started by
W. S.
Davidson). One of Davidson's daughters, Martha Anne, married to one
Larkins (of
Blackheath?) ([3]) Rather mysteriously, a view has grown
that
one or two finance houses in London became specialists in handling bills
arising from Australian trade (Sydney-India-London). These were firstly
the
survivors of Beale and Co., (or, Reid and Beale, who with others by 1805
had
developed "the First Canton Insurance Office"); and secondly,
Herries-Farquhar
in London, where W. S. Davidson worked till he became a partner there by
1838.
Davidson in the east was active in opium dealing by 1807-1813, but
apparently
was in NSW in 1808 when governor Bligh was deposed, then aged about 22.
By
1813, Davidson operated as "a consul for Portugal" (at Canton?) and
later
helped found Dent and Co. By 1816, Davidson as sole owner of Davidson
and Co.
was dealing in opium, cotton, tea and silver. Unfortunately, the
fragmentary
information available on other merchants of the day makes it difficult
to
develop a clear picture of Davidson's activities. Singh says clearly
that
Davidson became "an expert in the transfer of funds between London and
Sydney",
albeit without proof or further comment. ([4])
And I do not know of any other historian claiming that anyone in London
was any
particular "specialist" in handling funds transfers to or from
Australasia. The
quadrangular trade pattern has not in fact been well studied.
* *
*
Further
on
James Duncan of Blackheath:
One man not intimidated by the East India
Company's
earlier forbidding attitude to New South Wales was James Duncan, not a
government
contractor, ([5])
who between 1794 and 1800 acted as an agent for ship men who were mostly
master/owners, acting as opportunists in the convict service to
Australia. ([6])
From 1793, the war with France meant that fewer convicts were being
directed to
New South Wales, but most of the men acquainted with James Duncan were
able to
harvest convict business not taken by the whalers. One East India
husband quite
willing to deal with James Duncan was Robert Charnock. ([7]) Charnock's
interest pioneered a much greater involvement with New South Wales by
men more
closely connected with the East India Company, and heralded the arrival
of a
new institutional footing in the City of London that was to affect the
maritime
history of convict transportation to New South Wales. ([8])
([9])
([10])
James Duncan in August 1796 ([11]) handled
ships
business for Ganges, owned by
Capt.
Thos. Patrickson. Patrickson on 11 August, 1796 from St Albans Street,
Pall
Mall, had written to under-secretary John King concerning the contract
for the
ship, mentioning Shelton, Clerk of Arraign at the Old Bailey. ([12])
(By now, it should be clear that any ship man who knew Shelton's name
and role
as contract-maker would have been recognised by others in the know as
having
gotten close to the heart of the matter). The same day, Ganges received from overseer Campbell 73 pairs of double
irons
along with 73 convicts. ([13])
East India husbands James Duncan and Robert Charnock both
remained
willing to deal with convict transports. ([14]) On 27
September,
1797, Charnock in his usual line of East India Company business sent out
Northumberland 403 tons Capt. A.
Aikman
for coast and bay. Charnock's interests helped pioneer a much greater
involvement with New South Wales by men connected more closely with the
East
India Company, not without renewed struggles with the Company's negative
attitude. The continuing difference of opinion between the East India
Company
and government has been made clear by Bateson. ([15])
..."instead of
hiring the East Indiaman as convict transports, the government compelled
the
Company to charter the vessels engaged as convict ships - a reversal of
the
plan as originally intended".
In great
contrast to the present views on British Imperialism and colonial
government in
the 1780s and 1790s of Frost, Bateson's view on shipping deployment fits
nicely
with Helen Taft Manning's view published in 1933, the year in which the
Australian Oldham finished the first Ph.D. thesis on convict
transportation to
North America and Australia: ([16])
Manning's view was that... "Pitt and his colleagues had, in fact,
no
general principles on which to base a policy of imperial expansion, and
they
would never have undertaken to defend such a project as the colonization
of
Australia by upholding in universal terms the value of colonial
enterprises.
Just as they found the justification for Botany Bay in the difficulties
which
they faced after 1783 in ridding the British Isles of a dangerous and
expensive
problem..."
As he
made his way, Charnock was helped by James Duncan, who assisted the
London
Missionary Society mount Duff's
voyage. With shipping bound for the Pacific, something was happening
which Pitt
and his ministers may well (with common sense) have anticipated - that
once
initial conflict between the whalers and the East India Company had
settled,
perhaps, some whalers and some East India men would merge their
interests. This
merging happened slowly from 1797, and modified the institutional
setting of
the merchants engaging in convict contracting.
Charnock and Duncan in early 1798 wanted to
use Minerva to carry convicts to NSW,
then
trade in Bengal. ([17])
The annoyances of dealing with government and the East India Company is
evident
in the fact Minerva did not
arrive at
Sydney until 11 January, 1800, when one fearsome character of the
convict
colony was revealed... As Minerva
sailed
past the present site of the Sydney Opera House, a convict spied
Pinchgut, now
named Fort Denison, a harbour island. He wrote... "Just at daylight we
entered
Sydney heads, we then fired a gun for a pilot but none appeared... as we
sailed
up by Pinch Gut Island, the first thing I observed was the skeleton of a
man in
gibbets by name of Morgan, whose crime I discovered to be wilful
murder..." ([18])
Britain had exported its most fearsome moral authoritarianism to
intimidate
anyone sailing into the harbour - quite effectively. It has also used Minerva to exile Irish rebels. On
Minerva was "General" Joseph Holt, who had led rebels about County
Wicklow. ([19])
From
April 1798, the East India Company refused to charter Minerva on
"substantial
grounds". ([20])
But her managers induced the government to intervene - the Company
reluctantly
reversed its decision, waiving the need for the vessel to pass its
surveys.
Charnock's persistence helped usher in a new, more reasonable era where
East
India merchants would finally take convicts with less Company
interference. ([21])
But the bureaucracy of convict transportation remains convoluted. Minerva Capt. Joseph Salkeld was
owned
by Robert Charnock, James Duncan helped with the
affreightment.
By 5
April, 1798 a note in Treasury Board papers was an Account for clothing
used,
provided for Irish convicts to NSW - related to the chartering of Minerva - in the year of the
short-lived
Irish rebellion put down brutally by Lord Cornwallis. The Irish
rebellion began
on 23 May, 1798 at Naas, county Kildare, but since it was hopelessly
disorganised the rebellion remained confined to Kildare, Wicklow and
Wexford.
Attempts were made to spread it to Carlow, Meath and Dublin. On 25 May a
leader, Wolfe Tone was arrested; he later committed suicide in gaol.
There was
rebellion at Carlow, and Wexford, where the fighting ended. Dublin was
placed
under martial law, and on the hill of Tara in county Meath, 4000
insurgents
were defeated. A force greater than the force defeating Napoleon at
Waterloo
had to be used against the Irish who did rebel. On 21 June, 1798 Irish
rebels
fought a 90-minute battle, Vinegar Hill, before they surrendered to Lord
Lake's
forces. By March 1799, it was proposed that all fit Irish rebels be
given as
privates to the King of Prussia, a good way to get rid of them, one
official
thought. A Prussian officer actually sought such men, he wanted 200, and
one
man was "sold" to the king of Prussia as a slave for the salt mines. ([22])
In
dispute with East India Company over Minerva's
voyage, Charnock had contacted the Duke of Portland, Yonge the
Secretary of
War, and Secretary of the Navy Henry Dundas, who all virtually coerced
the East
India Company to succumb in the matter. ([23]) By 18
July, 1798
the Company's Court of Directors were forced to accept the ship,
lamenting they
had to accede to "these right Honble gentlemen". A note exists of 19
July, 1798
from the East India Company to the Colonial Office, about a copy of a
minute
from the court of directors, on a request by the Colonial Office that
the Minerva be allowed to proceed to
Bengal
to load sugar, indigo and cotton. ([24]) Minerva sailed for Cork on 6
August, but
was detained there amid ruction associated with the Irish rebellion. The
first
convicts were not embarked on her until 12 February, 1799, a costly
delay for
ship operators. ([25])
* * *
By 1797 William Richards had long disappeared from the scene and
Camden
Calvert and King had ceased involvements to NSW. By 1797, records -
except the
records on London aldermen - became silent on George Macaulay. Macaulay
by 1797
had lost almost 25 per cent of his wealth, according to his journal
entry of 22
April, 1797. (The alderman banker, Sir Thomas Harley, also lost heavily
in
1797.) ([26])
The great stayer of the Blackheath connection was John St Barbe. ([27])
In 1797 was produced J. W. Archenholtz' A
Picture of England, while
Anon,
wrote Great and New News from
Botany Bay.
(London) ([28])
But Anon forgot to mention which London merchants had been involved in
shipping
the prisoners. The Blackheath
Connection
between 1793 and 1797 began to lag, yet it did not entirely die.
Involvement in
convict transportation passed increasingly to men with East India
Company
connections. After 1800, the membership lists of the Blackheath Golf
Club
carried a surprising number of the names of shipping men involved with
carrying
convicts to Australia, notably Duncan Dunbar ([29]).
* * * *
*
By now with transportations, the name John
Campbell
(Duncan's son) surfaced into view, but only seldom. The hulks overseers
had
become mere bureaucrats. Barwell 796
tons departed Portsmouth on 7 November, 1797, Capt. John Cameron, to
arrive at
Sydney on 18 May, 1798, suffering an uprising on the voyage. ([30])
([31])
Since Duncan Campbell's ships husband was named Cameron, it is even
possible to
wonder if John, Duncan's son, had any links to Barwell's
voyage?(Although the
answer is no).
Aboard Barwell
were 185 male convicts, stores and provisions. Included as a convict was
poet
Michael Massey Robinson. ([32])
Also aboard was judge-advocate Richard Dore. From 21 January, 1798 Barwell was at the Cape of Good
Hope
till 19 March, as her officers wanted to dispose of goods, as they
feared a
shrunken market at Sydney. Richard Dore mentioned in a private letter
that
between England and the Cape, 25 convicts made a conspiracy to take the
ship.
After the plot was identified, Ensign George Bond of the NSW Corps was
confined
in irons. 7 June, 1798 was the date for Bond's court martial, but this
was
cancelled as Bond resigned his commission.
On 19
March, 1798 Barwell departed
the
Cape, 60 days to Sydney. Some trading must have been conducted by her
officers,
as when she left Sydney, it was claimed that her visit, plus the
activities of
officers from other ships, had drained the colony of cash. ([33])
This certainly speaks of a colony with a dangerously frail economy! By
June
1798, John Black was a ship's captain and sailing for Sydney in Indispensable with a cargo partly
got
from the sale of a captured Spanish ship,
La Union, in Cape Town. ([34])
Black later sailed for Michael Hogan, one of the opportunist convict
contractors interested in Sydney, captain (master-owner) of Marquis Cornwallis, who after 1800 was a partner in slaving
about
southern Africa with the evil Donald Trail. ([35]) John Black
was in
Sydney by 8 September, 1798. He later wrote his father that Barwell had brought to Sydney a
large
cargo from England; a 300-ton Bengal ship had brought a cargo, and an
American
vessel from Mauritius had brought tobacco and spirits, and these ships
had all
drained the colony of cash!
Barwell sailed from Sydney on
15
September, 1798, with aboard the Sydney merchant Robert Campbell, bound
for
Calcutta. Aboard also were some fifty other passengers, convicts with
their
time expired. Before his return voyage in 1798 to Sydney, Robert
Campbell
discussed problems of shipping cattle from Calcutta. His fear was that
Hindi
feelings about cattle might be an impediment to export. Barwell got to Bombay and by May, 1799, she met the convict
transport, the LMS fever ship Hillsborough,
at Cape Town. ([36])
And was not heard from again. Examining her voyage produces no clues
about any links
between Duncan and John Campbell, their ships husband D. Cameron, Capt.
John
Cameron, and then Cameron's passenger, Robert Campbell. If there were any links, it would have been easy enough for
any
associates in India of John Campbell in London, or Robert Campbell in
Sydney,
to tie arrangements together. No evidence has appeared any such
arrangements
existed. Duncan Campbell of the Adelphi, London, and Robert, of Sydney,
were
not related at all.
* * *
Duncan
Campbell's last years:
The
ageing Campbell persisted with working as hulks overseer. During 1797 he
was
arranging for his son, John, to relinquish East India trade, ([37])
then become deputy hulks superintendent. ([38]) In 1797
Campbell
lived at Shere Hall, Mount Pleasant, Wilmington, Kent. By 1797,
presumably
working with ships husband Cameron, John was helping manage to Madras
his
father's ships Henry Dundas
and Britannia. It appears that once
John had
become experienced enough at the work, the father-son team dispensed
with the
services of Cameron, who faded from Lloyd's records about
1796.
An
idea of the profitability of the hulks contracts may be gained from the
following figures. In the year of John Campbell's entry into the
business,
1797, the expense to government for the expense of the hulks
establishment
managed by Campbell and Bradley was £32,080. The cost of the convicts'
labour
for their employ at the navy and ordnance yards was £1498/14/0. ([39])
Campbell had always said he found the management of the hulks an
arduous
business. By early 1797 he felt forced to contact Evan Nepean, then at
the
Admiralty, in slightly pathetic tones to ask a favour. His letters had
the
tremors of one who fears he has slipped from view due to the hurry of
wartime
business, one who is re-establishing contact with the great. Now aged
71,
Campbell suffered tiredness compounded by wartime inflation which raised
the
costs of hulks management enough for him to draw the matter to
Treasury's
attention. Campbell wanted help with the hulks and sought the approval
of
Nepean, now helping administer the navy, for his son John to assist him
as
deputy hulks superintendent. (40) He had lately seen his old friend
since the
1760s, George Kinlock, who agreed to be a guarantor for a new
arrangement. ([40])
James
Bradley had died. His successor was Andrew Hawes Dyne, who on 3 January,
1797
from 25 Berners St mentioned taking James Bradley's contract for the
hulks at
Langston and Portsmouth. (Later he became known as A. H. Bradley). ([41])
Bradley and Campbell had probably met to discuss matters. That same day,
3
January, 1797, Campbell requested an audience with Evan Nepean to
discuss his
proposals before making a more formal approach to the Treasury. ([42])
Campbell
Letter
239:
Adelphi 3 Jany
1797
Evan Nepean
Esq
Permit me Dear Sir to request the favour of
a few
minutes audience at any hour this day which will best suit your
convenience on
a matter which is likely to be of considerable importance to me and my
family -
Yours most faithfully ([43])
Campbell
had obviously approached Nepean as an old friend who might do him a
favour, not
merely as an official who could make an organisational
adjustment.
Campbell
Letter
240:
Adelphi 4 Jany
1797
Evan Nepean
Esq
Dear
Sir,
I put this in my pocket to hand to you to day in
case I
should not have a favourable opportunity of speaking on the subject,
just to
mention that it is my intention that my son, John, Captain, of the Henry
Dundas
on his return home from India, now daily expected, should be conamed
with me in
the management of the business of the convicts at Portsmouth and
Langston
Harbour. It is with that prospect alone that I am induced to solicit
your
assistance on the occasion; & I should be happy to have your opinion
whether I may write to Mr Rose to that effect
I am ([44])
Campbell
Letter
241
[Written in 1797, undated]
Adelphi Friday morning
[A note to the
manuscript
reads: - This should have been copied in before the letter to Mr Rose -
Adelphi
Friday morning]
Mr Campbell presents his most respectful Compliments to
Mr
Nepean and as he has not had the honour of hearing from him touching the
business on which he requested his interposition with Mr Rose now takes
the
liberty to remind him that business is still depending nor does Mr C
wish to
move further on it until he is favoured by Mr Nepeans sentiments on the
subject. ([45])
Campbell
Letter
242:
Adelphi 7 January 1797
George Rose
Esq.
I called this morning at the Treasury to
have the
honour of paying my respects to you, but understanding you were gone
into the
country for some days, in order to avoid delay in a business which may
require
immediate consideration I am induced to take this mode of adressing
you. The death of my friend Mr Bradley
having
afforded me an opportunity of again tendering my Service to my Lords of
the
Treasury I request Sir you will have the goodness to inform their
Lordships
that I am willing to resume the Superintendance of the Convicts employed
at
Portsmouth and Langston Harbour on the same terms as were given to that
Gentleman. The fear I entertained of my inability to support the fatigue
of
mind as well as body attendant on the discharge of this arduous office
which
upon a former occassion induced me to request their Lordships permission
to
resign that trust are now entirely removed by the confidence I place in
the
assistance of my Son John Captain of the Henry Dundas now daily expected
from
India. whom with their Lordships
approbation I would wish might be joined with me in the management of
this
business - With his aid I should entertain no doubt of being able to
conduct
this important charge so as to merit a continuation of the approbation
with
which their Lordships have hitherto honored my endeavour in the public
Service.
With very great respect, I have the honor to
be
Sir ([46])
Campbell
Letter
243:
Adelphi 23 February 1797
Evan Nepean
Esqr.
The friendly disposition you have on
several
occassions manifested towards me and my Family encourages me to hope you
will
pardon the liberty I take in again adressing you on a subject in which
my Comfort
is materially concerned - - At my advanced period of life you will
readily
imagine it would prove no small consolation to have one of my Sons
settled at
home to aid one in the conduct of my affairs in general and as the line
of life
in which John has been brought up more particularly fits him to assist
me in
the management of any Publick business I have to solicit your kind
interposition with Mr Rose to get his Name introduced joined with mine
in the Contract
for the Superintendance of the Convicts at Woolwich, a measure which by
affording one as Associate on whom I could place so much dependance
would
considerably relieve the anxiety of mind necessarily attendant on the
discharge
of such a Duty - In order to explain some particulars of the situation
in which
my Son John will stand pending the determination of this business permit
me to
request for him a few minutes audience at any time you may be pleased to
appoint.
With very great
respect
I
am
Dear
Sir
C
([47])
Campbell
Letter
244:
[A note, undated, estimated to have been written early in
1797]
Messrs Duncan & John
Campbell present their Compliments to Mr White & beg leave to
acquaint him
that George Farquar Kinlock Esq of Dyers - C-: Aldermanbury &
William Bell
Esqr of Norfolk Strand are the Securities they propose for the due
performance
of the Contract for Keeping the Convicts on the River Thames - and would
be
much obliged to Mr White if he would favour Messrs with notice of when
their
attendance will be necessary. ([48])
Campbell
Letter
245:
Adelphi 22 March
1797
George Rose
Esq.
The ready compliance with my Sollicitation to
have
my Son joined with me in my Contract for the Superintendance of the
Convicts at
Woolwich is an additional mark of the favour and indulgence which this
year I
have received from my Lords of the Treasury and claims my grateful
acknowledgement. At the same time I presume to hope that altho' the new
Contract associating my Son is directed to be drawn in the same terms as
the
former no alterations will be present be made as the extra-allowance
which my
Lords of the Treasury thought expedient to grant me last year on account
of the
extraordinary rise in the price of Provisions since altho' the price of
Flour
& Bread is greatly reduced the uncommon advance on articles of not
less
material Consumption fully counterbalance that reduction. Beef since the
date
of your letter authorizing that change has risen no less than 10/- per
cwt
& Heads in population so that the extraordinary expence in attending
the
Maintenance & Guarding the Convicts is not now less than at the time
my
deceased friend Mr Bradley joined me in the application we found
ourselves
necessitated to make on that Score to my Lords of the Treasury and
therefore I
rely with confidence on the consideration of their Lordships that no
disadvantage will accrue to me and Son from the circumstance of the new
Contract bearing date subsequent to the letter above alluded to.
With very great respect I have the honor to
be
Sir ([49])
Campbell
Letter
246:
3 April 1797
John Campbell
Esq
Dear
Jack
As it has been agreed between us agreeably to the
opinion
of our friends that the probable Profit of our Contract and the little
other
business we have to manage when divided between us will not be an
adequate
Compensation for your having relinquished your pursuit in the India line
in
order to assist me in the conduct of my affairs I promise to make up
your half
of the business Fifteen hundred pounds a year, provided that this my
allowance
to you shall not in any year exceed the sum of five hundred pounds - In
this
calculation I do not mean to include other Profit or Sale on the ship
Mary.
I
am
Dear
Jack
Your
Affectionate
Father ([50])
Quietly
insistent about it, pleading age and tiredness, Campbell won. The new
arrangement took up formally by 3 April, 1797, and John Campbell was
thereafter
mentioned, albeit rarely, in documents of convict delivery to ships for
NSW. ([51])
From 1797 (79) John Campbell maintained a low profile in his role as
hulks
superintendent. He is alluded to briefly (in G. M. Dow, Samuel Terry, The Botany Bay Rothschild. Sydney University
Press,
1974), in respect of delivery to a convict transport. John became a faceless bureaucrat, and he
never
achieved the notoriety of his father. Nor would he ever have wanted to
seek it.
([52])
By
April, Campbell and John had opened their joint business books for
keeping the
Thames hulks. Given this new relationship with John, Campbell Snr felt
obliged
to adjust various finances relating to his sons and their situations. By
June
he was considering charging
Saltspring
with £5000 in favour of Dugald in case he predeceased Dugald. John was
to be
given family compensation for abandoning his East India trade to help
his
father, and this in turn also affected returns to Dugald. Delicate
family
adjustments were made to financial provisions for senior sons. John,
penalized
by giving up India trade, was promised he would be made up an extra
£1500 per
year, exclusive of any sale or profit from the ship Mary. Dugald also had an annual allowance, and as John also
handled
the Jamaica ships by now, Duncan directed John to remit one third of the
net
proceeds of Saltspring to Dugald as Dugald had cause to draw on
them.
* *
*
In
Campbell's domain of major interest, from May 1797 a British-US debt
commission
began to meet in Philadelphia. These proceedings ended on 31 July, 1798,
when
the US withdrew over differences about the interest due to British
creditors.
(One wonders if the anti-Jay Treaty Jeffersonian interest had pressed
its views
on this always contentious point that had led Campbell and Jefferson to
disagree in 1786?). As well, says Kellock, the "personality of one
Britisher
who kept lecturing on American sins" had not helped matters. ([53])
By
June 1797, Campbell was considering charging Saltspring with £5000 in favour of Dugald in case he himself
predeceased Dugald. ([54])
By 30 August, doubtless buoyed with hopes after proceedings had begun in
Philadelphia, Campbell was preparing Powers of Attorney for the
recovery, yet
again, of his debts in America. And unfortunately, at this point, the
Campbell
Letterbooks cease providing information.
Varieties of
business:
Campbell was ill about 22 August, 1797. His attorney Aldridge
attended.
There arose further mention of recovery of American debts under the
treaty, and
Campbell's lawyer friend Kinlock also gave advice. On 30 August Aldridge
noted
again taking instructions from Mr. Boyick for a separate Letter of
Attorney
from you [Campbell] to (?) [John] Rose and one Brockonburgh
[Brockenbrough] to
recover Debts in Virginia & to Mr ? for the like purposes in
Maryland. ....
Mr ? and Mr Colin Campbell ...and particularly as to the redemption of
the ?
and Kingsdown Estate, giving up the Adelphi house ... ([55])
Campbell
was either fully retiring, or in trouble, perhaps both. But if he had
any
difficulties, it appears they did not trouble the terms of the will
he'd already made.
* *
*
During
1799 arose growing depression in the West India trade. Merchants needed
a loan
from the Bank of England to subsist and on sugar islands, numerous
estates fell
into the hands of London men. ([56])
In 1798, Pitt had estimated the income from the West Indies at £4
million, the
income from the rest of the world being only £1 million! In 1799, the
British
sugar market was glutted. Napoleon knew that England had to export, so
in 1799,
as a result of speculations in sugar after the revolution in
Saint-Dominigue,
some 82 firms in England went bankrupt, most of them in the West Indian
trade.
The engagements had totalled £2.5 million. After 1800 the sugar
planter's
profit declined to 2.5 per cent, as low as 1.75 per cent. Adam Smith
attacked
the British West Indian monopoly of the British sugar market, East India
sugar
became a market threat. The trade was changing, and all this may have
been on
Campbell's mind as he wrote this letter. ([57])
Campbell
Letter
247:
Adelphi Oct 13
1797
Duncan and John
Campbell
Agreeable to the allowance I have
hitherto
made to my Son Dugald Campbell and which it is my intention to continue
to him
I hereby direct that you do account to him for one third of the neat
proceeds
of Saltspring Estate commencing with the Crops now on hand and for which
he
will draw upon you as he may have occasion.
I am ([58])
Campbell
Letter
248:
And, the last
letter in Duncan Campbell's Private Letterbooks, ([59]) is
this...
Adelphi, 13th October
1797.
Duncan and John
Campbell,
Agreeable to the
Allowance I
have hitherto made to my son Dugald Campbell and which it is my
intention to
continue with him I hereby direct that you do account to him for One
Third of
the neat Proceeds of Saltspring Estate commencing with the Crop now on
hand and
for which he will draw upon you as he may have
occasion.
I
am
There
rested all known family financial matters till Campbell
died.
Towards the death of
Duncan
Campbell:
Between 1797-1801, information about Campbell as the hulks
overseer
faded from the official records and his own letterbooks. Campbell was
little
more than a signature on a document here, or a bill to be honoured
there. The
administration of the hulks became more bureaucratic. What Campbell had
established was now institutionalised and there were fewer signs of his
own
initiative. ([60]) As
it
became obvious he would retire from the hulks, he was watched. Certain
parties
in government who had never liked Campbell, or the hulks, wanted to see
the
hulks brought under revised administration, one more suited to public
management. Magistrate Aaron Graham would replace Campbell as hulks
superintendent. ([61])
The
anti-imperialist Jeremy Bentham continued his plans to see the hulks
superseded
and his Panopticon prison begun, perhaps at Battersea Rise on land owned
by the
Second Lord Spencer, Lord Privy Seal, from mid-1794. ([62])
Or at Woolwich. Or the Millbank site near Tothill Fields in which the
Marquis
of Salisbury had an interest. ([63])
But Campbell had won that long battle. The linkages between the hulks
establishment and transportation to Australia were to continually
frustrate
Bentham's efforts to see a rational prison system established. ([64])
Was
Bentham encouraged by Campbell's death? ([65])
In 1803 he produced his Plea for
the
Constitution, ... A plea showing the enormities committed to the
oppression
of British subjects, in breach of the Magna Carta, the Petition of
Rights, the
Habeus Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights, and several Transportation Acts.
It also
discussed the design, foundation and government of the penal colony of
NSW
including an inquiry into the right of the Crown to legislate without
Parliament in Trinidad and other British Colonies. ([66])
Stewart
Erskine wanted to take on the contracts to manage the hulks. Whether
Erskine
knew the details of proposed plans for a different administration of the
hulks
- by Aaron Graham - is unknown. Campbell presumably felt sparks of
satisfaction
at the opening of the West India docks. But his health was breaking
down, and
perhaps his wealth too had been dented in 1797, the year which had
brought
trouble for the gold standard and the Bank of England. In 1799 Campbell
and
Dugald considered some plans to possibly sell Saltspring on Jamaica. He was also still trying to recover
his
American debts "under the treaty" made by which Jay in 1794. (By 22
April,
1803, a British commission was appointed to examine the claims of
British
creditors and settle debts after the matter of 1802. Claims by loyalists
were
referred to another commission yet again. ([67])
British commissioners settled the last claim in 1811, but their figures
may
be well below what was claimed,
gave
little real idea of what the Americans had owed, and many debts had been paid off before information reached
them.) ([68])
Campbell's health failed more often from 1797. Fewer letters
drifted
into his files. He became querulous with a daughter's suitor and had
other
dissatisfactions. He argued over the settlement for the marriage of his
daughter Ann to Dr William Peele. Peele at one point withdrew his offer
of
marriage. Aldridge the attorney flitted in and out of the house at the
Adelphi,
summoned for this or for that. By 1798, Campbell had even begun thinking
of
giving up the lease of the Adelphi address, the property at Wilmington
was
discussed in dubious prospect. Ann did marry Dr Peele, only to die on 22
December, 1801, of an undisclosed ailment, to be buried in the Peele
vault at
Dartford, aged 32.
About
February, 1797, Duncan's son Mumford married. Later, perhaps by 1800, he
was
head assistant at the general treasury of India. ([69]) Mumford
seems to
have first gone out to India in 1795, the year of his first listing in
India Registers, Bengal Civil
Index. By 1799 Mumford was assistant to the
Register of the Zillah Adawlut, Purneah. By 1803 he was head assistant
to the
sub-treasurer; by 1807, Judge and Magistrate of Rungpore. In 1809 he
apparently
was at home, and again in 1813 at home, his last appearance in such
registers.
([70])
What sort of environment did Mumford work in? About 1804, Cambridge
University
undergraduates in the interests of a patriotic education were invited by
the
vice-president of Fort William College, Bengal, to submit on the topic
(for an
annual prize for an essay on British India)... "The Probable Design of
Divine
Providence in subjecting so large a portion of Asia to the British
dominion",
or "The best means of civilising the subjects of the British empire in
those
parts of India" controlled by the East India Company. ([71]) Mumford
lived in
an environment requiring one to be continually choosing between
pomposities!
As part
of revamping the family finances, it appears Duncan and John sold their
ship Henry Dundas. Lloyd's Registers for 1799-1800 listed a husband, T. Newte,
sending
out Henry
Dundas 1200 tons Capt. Carruthers. ([72]) (Although,
the
Campbells may not have been wealthy enough to manage a
1200-tonner?)
1801...
Hulks
administration from 1800:
Duncan's son John by 1801 was of Great Queen St, London. (He was
not the
John Campbell long known as a regular subscriber to Lloyd's Register). About 1801, a memorandum (dated merely,
1801)
came to the attention of Campbell's loyal clerk since 1772, Boyick,
relating to
an assignee of John Metcalf a bankrupt. Campbell's last transaction with
Metcalf had been in March 1781, the matter left in the hands of bankers
Gregg
and Potts. ([73])
Campbell in his long career had acquired a sizeable list of deceased
estates.
And on
27 January, 1801, Erskine informed government he was willing to contract
for
the convicts in the Woolwich hulks. ([74]) It is
doubtful he
would have done so without knowledge of Campbell's impending retirement,
and
John's distaste for the business of hulks management. There is however
no item
in Campbell's letterbooks stating he wished to relinquish the hulks, or
his being
told to do so. But relinquish they did, and one imagines John Campbell
thought
it not a moment too soon. By 4 February, 1801 a letter from the
Transport
Office to George Rose at Treasury signified that officers of the
Transport
Commission were about to conduct an examination to find the best mode of
keeping the convicts, in the event of the resignation from their
contracts of
Messrs Campbell. ([75])
There
still remain bureaucratic mysteries surrounding the Irish
transportation. John
Campbell's account for the delivery of 180 convicts to Minerva per the order of Edward P. Hatton was dated 23
March, 1801,
as Treasury Board papers indicate. This is a
mystery of the records, since on 27 March 27, 1801?, Edward F.
Hatton
ordered John Campbell to deliver 80 convicts to the transport Minerva Capt. Salkeld (which
arrived in
Sydney in 11 January, 1800). ([76])
the charter party for which was referred to in a contract with James
Duncan,
and the government witness was M. Cardin. ([77]) Since Minerva was to take Irish
prisoners,
Thomas Shelton did not draw the contract for her. Bateson however says
Minerva was owned by Robert
Charnock,
and presumably Charnock or one of his agents - James Duncan - took the
contract. ([78])
It is
difficult to see what possible jurisdiction John Campbell had in the
matter,
more so as there has been no record sighted indicating Duncan Campbell
after
1784 had anything to do with any delivery of sizeable numbers of Irish
convicts, certainly not respecting any numbers embarked at Cork. So just
why
John Campbell's name on the eve of his retirement from hulks business is
associated with the delivery of 180 Irish convicts to Minerva remains mysterious, unless some Irish sentenced in
British
courts were then sent back to Ireland before being transported from
there? This
would be strange enough, but there exists also an item of folklore which
contradicts the maritime record. The belief has existed in Ireland,
Britain and
Australia, that Irish convicts transported to Australia were sent first
to
British ports before being shipped to Australia. This view is not
supported by
Bateson's book, The Convict
Ships.
* *
*
Meanwhile, the transport commissioners called on the Campbells,
and also
on Erskine. Sir William Rule,
one of
the surveyors of the navy, formerly master shipwright at Woolwich Yards
had
become Erskine's ally. ([79])
Rule voluntarily called on the transport commissioners to indicate he
had known
Erskine for many years and that Erskine had really had all the business
of
convicts on his hands during the existence of the Campbell contracts,
they
being nominal superintendents only. From Erskine's conduct, Rule thought
no one
could be fairer to both government and the convicts than Erskine. (At
this
time, Alexander Macleay, later colonial secretary for NSW, was on the
staff of
the Transport Board).
The Transport commissioners recommended the contract be renewed
to
Erskine on the terms he had proposed on 27 January. By 22 May, 1801,
magistrate
Aaron Graham was making proposals regarding the hulks at Langston
Harbour and
Portsmouth, just as the returns of A. H. Dyne had been examined. ([80])
Over 30 November-3 December in 1801, Graham made further suggestions for
improvements to the hulks system. Behind such moves were the good
offices of
Pelham, who wanted the hulks system and transportation swept with a new
broom.
([81])
On 22 June, 1801, Duncan and John Campbell
gave an
account to government regarding convicts. On 19 June, 1802, John
Campbell of
Great Queen Street merchant made an oath on his convict returns before
Baker at
the Public Offices, Hatton Gardens.
After
the resignation of the Campbells as Thames hulks overseers in 1801,
George Rose
at Treasury contacted the Transport Office about an examination being
made on
the management of the convicts. The Transport Commissioners called on
the
Campbells and Erskine. Government after Campbell's death continued to
employ
Erskine, of Fludyer Street, Greenwich, until 5 April, 1803 (which date
appears
to be the last mention of Erskine in the records). ([82]) ([83]) By 22
March,
1802, the Commissioners Transport were assessing Mr. Addington's query
to allow
Erskine to charge an extra penny per convict per day. ([84]) However,
about 26
June, 1803, Erskine was prosecuted at the Summer Assizes for assisting
the
escape of convict William Smith from Prudentia
hulk. Perhaps, Erskine had enemies who would do anything to remove him?
([85])
A waterman named Richard Vickars gave evidence. The court's decision is
not
noted. It is rather difficult to believe that after 27 years on the
hulks,
Erskine would have assisted an escape! One suspects Erskine was "got" by long-standing enemies of the hulks
system.
But he survived. ([86]) ([87]) But by 28 May, 1813, Messrs Bradley
and
Erskine were still furnishing the convict
establishment with provisions, clothing, etc. ([88])
Act 41
Geo III c.28 improved some conditions for prisoners. Pelham in his new
broom
mood wished to implement a new system, whereby prisoners would be
transported
on naval vessels only. ([89])
He did not succeed, which was a pity, as by 1810, far from convict
vessels
being sent out in naval vessels, a system developed whereby, as Bateson
noted,
privately contracted convict ships took out as guards, military
detachments
which would later proceed from NSW to India, as the ships went trading
to India
and Singapore. It would have been more appropriate, as a matter of
patrolling
Imperial frontiers, if naval vessels with military detachments had been
taking
convicts out. ([90])
* *
*
1802....
About February, 1802, Boyick at John
Campbell's
premises, Great Queen Street was contacted by Miss Rebecca Campbell,
Duncan's
niece (though it is not certain just who her parents were). Perhaps she
had
come of age, or otherwise needed money or advice. After pressure from
British
creditors, Article VI of the Jay Treaty was annulled under a convention
signed
8 June, 1802, when Great Britain agreed to pay to the US about four
times the
amount needed to satisfy American claims, in order the US in turn could
pay
what the British claimed. ([91])
Doubtless, interpreting such information was a task for Boyick, who was kept by the Campbell
family
as clerk after Duncan's death, presumably as he had the longest memory
of all
for the difficult business of trying to recover American debt monies.
Finally,
in 1811, Campbell's estate was awarded £4000 on the part of his debt
"found
good", little enough of the £38,000 he claimed he'd
lost.
The
death of
Duncan Campbell in 1803:
Duncan Campbell spent most of his last years at Wilmington,
retired from
the city into Kent. He died aged 78 on 28 February, 1803. ([92]) His last
years
had been quiet and seemingly attended with peace. There are no family
notes on
the manner of death, the cause, or the expressions of grief. A certain
calm,
perhaps that of expectation and preparedness, had prevailed. (At the
Blackheath
Golf Club the custom when a member died was that members wore mourning
garb
their next few days of play. The estate duty on Campbell's will was
£22,684,
the matter probably being discussed by 9 March, 1803. ([93])
Present
at the proving of the will should have been Alexander Pitcairn, who made
it
known he was intimately acquainted with Duncan Campbell formerly of the
Adelphi
in the parish of St Martin in the Fields in the County of Middlesex but
late of
Wilmington in the County of Kent Esquire deceased for ten years and
upwards
before and to the time of his death which as this deponent hath been
informed
and believes on the twenty fourth day of the Month of February last
past...
1803:
after
Campbell's death:
The
first proving of the old man's will was made at London before John
Sorrell
doctor of laws on the oath of (Duncan's son) John Campbell and David
Pitcairn
on 9 March, 1803. A second proving was sworn on 11 November, 1803, once
John's
brother Dugald Campbell had arrived from Jamaica. A legal representative
for
the family was Henry J. Curtis, of Budleigh, Salterton, who inquired on
the
outstanding claims, if any, of the estate. Hunter and Co. of 9 New
Square,
Lincoln's Inn, reported Campbell had held two shares in the British
Fisheries
Society.
* *
*
It is
unknown what Dugald, Duncan's eldest son, did after his father died. It
is
known, his heirs and assigns inherited
Saltspring on Jamaica. Dugald in his turn was to be an executor of
the will
of William Bligh, but he predeceased Bligh. None of Campbell's direct descendants came to particular notice in
history. His memory lived on in odium. Tainted with the stigma of
dealing with
convicts, his life and
reputation became
fragmented, splintered. His family history was miswritten. It is worse
than
ironic, what happened to the life story of many a hapless convict... no
care for
the soul, the experiences of decades mishandled, with written details
forgotten
or misplaced, uncertainty over a last resting place, records lost of
friendships and fortunes, a life fit only to become what gossips want to
make
of it if anything is remembered at all... happened also to Duncan
Campbell, the
overseer of the Thames prison hulks, a man who checklisted the names of
thousands of convicts destined to be sent to North America and
Australia.
The
fragmentation of Campbell's biography, due partly to simple hatred, is
why, in
United States, British and Australian history, Duncan Campbell never met
Thomas
Jefferson... When in life, he did.
No ships
were mentioned in Campbell's will. His long-term deputy, Erskine, was
also
ignored in the will. The long wonder of Erskine's career is that he was
never
the victim of revenge taken by members of some alleged organised crime
ring.
Given his long career, Erskine must have become some kind of river
institution
in his own right. That Erskine has never been noticed in London folklore
also
seems incredible. Erskine could have been much criticised, say, as an
evil
sadist, but he has not been, and if he was a decent man, this might be
why
Campbell's obituarist took the view he did. Campbell had never been
popular
with journalists and the hulks were always unpopular with London. His
obituarist thought Campbell was not a gentleman, and took an opportunity
to
pillory him...
Campbell's obituary in the next issue of The Gentleman's Magazine read:- "Died at Wilmington, in
Kent,
Duncan Campbell Esq. He is succeeded as governor and overseer of the
hulks at
Woolwich by his deputy, Mr. Stewart Erskine, a gentleman possessed of
great
humanity, and of the strictest honesty and integrity and who has had the
sole
management of that concern for him ever since its first establishment in
1775.
Mr. C. died possessed of much property, yet, to the surprise of their
best
friends, has not left any legacy to Mr E for his long and faithful
services;
though he seemed always to be considered himself much indebted to that
gentleman for his great accumulation of fortune." ([94])
Campbell's land-hunger had been observed from afar. Some
journalists are
observant, the better ones are perceptive as well. So, one obituarist
heaped
odium on Campbell, drove a stake through his heart before his body was
scarcely
cold in the grave. He reminded the Campbell family where their money had
come
from. No mention of a West India merchant, no mention of William Bligh
and the
sensational Bounty mutiny. No
mention
of good works dutifully undertaken by way of shifting convicts out of
the
kingdom. Just, ingratitude. But the obituary was just as vain as any
other
journalistic attempt since 1776 to draw attention to the hulks. It was
London
feeling about the hulks that motivated this odium heaped on Campbell.
George
Macaulay when he died on (5 March) 1803 was praised in his obituary, and
his
fellow-aldermen were pleased to vote his widow an annuity. His
obituarist may
or may not have known Macaulay had engaged in transporting convicts to
"New
Holland", but presumably, like most Londoners, he would have approved of
getting rid of "the scum". ([95])
The
obituarists of both men also failed to mention a new continent -
Australia -
introduced to the world through the agency of Britain's obsession with
deporting undesirables to anywhere it thought fit. Life and reality are
only
ever as they are seen to be. And so an unknown London journalist's
epitaph for
Duncan Campbell remained as an unknown Englishman's
comment on the Thames hulks and the so-called "founding of Australia". A
thing
apparently of determination, greed, ingratitude and odium for eternity,
full of
things to be forgotten. Not as something odious that was foisted on the
unknown
and enigmatic continent of Australia, and its people, for which Britain
was and
is responsible, and will not fully admit, and has not yet, because to do
so
would call into question the morality of its career as a colonising
Imperial
power.
A
brutal authoritarianism lives and breathes in the documents of
Australia's
early European history. This authoritarianism is palpable, pervasive,
tough as
turtle shell. It is the authoritarianism applied when a kingdom rids
itself of
its social scum and thinks and feels little of the consequences. But
finally,
it is possible to turn the turtle over...
Duncan
Campbell on 15 November, 1770 wrote to his brother-in-law John, a
strangely
wistful remark from Britain's arch convict contractor, and a man who by
virtue
of statutory law, and despite himself, became a "private enterprise
criminologist". His view is reminiscent of an ancient formula known to
many
cultures: "Order is the first law of heaven"... except that the order
Campbell
dwelt in was created by a tough British authoritarianism mottled a
little with
compassion, as with lichen on a rock .
"I was always a lover of Peace, & I think
the
older I grow the more I am inclined to it. Not that I got anything by
it,
though perhaps you will say I do, and not be far
wrong."
* *
*
Afterword:
Amid
ambivalent philosophies on how to manage convicted persons, or,
criminals, or,
rectify unjust laws, what, if any, is the moral of the way Britain first
colonised Australia?
One
moral is relatively simple. Any
state
which herds a mix of political dissidents as well as ordinary criminals
into
prisons or camps for reasons associated with ideological assertions
about
"productivity", has plainly failed, ideologically, socially, morally,
and
financially. The history of slavery teaches similar lessons about
notions of
humanity (or lack of them) versus
notions of "productivity".
Obviously, Britain's failure in the 1780s had been the loss of
the
American colonies
In the
Twentieth Century, such mixes of dissidents and criminals have been
herded into
labour camps and treated brutally in Germany, Soviet Russia, and more
lately in
China. The point is ideological, somewhat divorced from ordinary notions
of
Crime and Punishment. Once an ideology has been used, via some corrupted process of law-making, to define critics,
rebels
or protestors as "criminals", or vermin, or human trash, the door has
been
opened too-widely to abuses of human rights.
The
historical evidence and lesson is that the allowance of such abuses then
describes or defines a state which has become morally, politically and
possibly
financially bankrupt. We can also complain that information simply
disappears!
Since the Industrial Revolution, the British Empire has made such ills
of
statecraft evident to history, but a wish to keep this vague before
everybody,
rather than clear, is why so much information about the British penal
colonisation of Australia has disappeared in a mere 200 years! This
wish-for-vagueness is the main cause of the "amnesia" which has
afflicted
Australia's earliest penal and maritime history, because in the final
analysis,
the disappearing information is relatively easy to
re-discover.
The
clear implication is that the writing of Australia's earliest history
has
remained an unthinking victim of British ideology, or, a victim of a
population
which asks too few questions.
"It was in Australia that the English
invented
concentration camps, it was in Australia that the English invented total
demoralisation through exile."
Robert Hughes, author
of The Fatal Shore, in an article
in The Sydney Morning Herald, 17
January,
1987, interviewed by Elisabeth Wynhausen
Here,
Hughes is incorrect. The English developed techniques of
demoralisation-through-exile in Cromwell's time, exiling to the
Caribbean.
The
belief also exists that the invention of the concentration camp can be
attributed to Lord Kitchener, during the Boer War. It might be more
appropriate
to say that the British concentration camp was invented in 1776, by
William
Eden and Duncan Campbell, creators of the Thames River prison hulks.
Despite
political protest at the time, specially-written legislation ensured
that
British convicts worked at servile labour at home, in sight of the
population,
as both a warning to evildoers and, also, as an ideological point about
rebellious Americans. The Americans were not curbed, the institution of
the
hulks remained, allegedly to benefit the state.
The long career of Duncan Campbell
as
convict contractor, and his long absence from "history", means perhaps
one
thing, more so since the allegations that he was corrupt remain so
equivocal...
Prisoners should not be held by
guards
employed by private contractors, but by employees of government...
employees and
governments who are ultimately accountable to an educated, voting
public.
The history of the "founding" of
Australia is steeped in themes of Crime and Punishment, and the
experience of
convictism was seared deeply into the collective experience of European
Australia... yet Campbell's career has still remained obscured.
Campbell's story was different to
what
"history" has told and retold, while his Letterbooks remained unread. We
can
conclude, perhaps, that society's dealings with Crime and Punishment are
not
only more difficult than we have imagined, they can also be too-easily
forgotten - despite "history".
As to The
Blackheath Connection... which has remained
unknown.
In a symbolic sense, an inheritor
of the Blackheath Connection was
the
London Missionary Society, which bound up its spiritual aspirations with
maritime connections, missionary activity, convict transportation, and
curiosity about the people of the Pacific. The Society in the 1820s had
a
particular view on the "ownership" of Australia which was reported in The Sydney
Gazette.
The Directors of the London
Missionary
Society by 1827, whose missionaries ranged the Pacific, were alarmed by
news of
French activity intended for the Pacific. Their understanding then was
that New
Holland and Van Diemen's Land are...
"the property of the British Crown".
The Sydney Gazette, 10 August, 1827.
It
is then ironic and appropriate, both, that with the controversial 1992
Mabo
decision in the High Court of Australia, which entailed a triumph for
views on
Aboriginal land rights in Australia, and on some adjacent islands, that
there
had been an earlier dispute over land rights between the plaintiff,
Eddie Mabo,
and the London Missionary Society. The Society
lost.
Which is almost to say, that,
despite
its remaining unknown to history for so long, The Blackheath Connection finally lost - because of a legal
decision that was legal, and also usefully embraced findings from
British
maritime history. The implication is that any idealism which is
appropriate to
mention here could, and probably should, be radiated through any reading
of
European-Australasian history, 1770-2000.
Dan Byrnes,
Armidale
NSW
* * *
[Finis
Chapter
46]
Words
9585 words with footnotes 12549 pages 23 footnotes
95
