The first 736 convicts banished from England to Australia land in Botany Bay.

Over the next 60 years, approximately

50,000 criminals were transported from Great Britain to the "land down under," in one of the strangest episodes in
criminal-justice history.
The accepted wisdom of the upper and ruling classes in 18th century England was that criminals were inherently
defective. Thus, they could not be rehabilitated and simply required separation from the genetically pure and law-
abiding citizens. Accordingly, lawbreakers had to be either killed or exiled, since prisons were too expensive. With the
American victory in the Revolutionary War, transgressors could no longer be shipped off across the Atlantic, and the
English looked for a colony in the other direction.
Captain Arthur Phillip, a tough but fair career naval officer, was charged with setting up the first penal colony in
Australia. The convicts were chained beneath the deck during the entire hellish six-month voyage. The first voyage
claimed the lives of nearly 10 percent of the prisoners, which remarkably proved to be a rather good rate. On later
trips, up to a third of the unwilling passengers died on the way. These were not hardened criminals by any measure;
only a small minority were transported for violent offenses. Among the first group was a 70-year-old woman who had
stolen cheese to eat.
Although not confined behind bars, most convicts in Australia had an extremely tough life. The guards who
volunteered for duty in Australia seemed to be driven by exceptional sadism. Even small violations of the rules could
result in a punishment of 100 lashes by the cat o'nine tails. It was said that blood was usually drawn after five lashes
and convicts ended up walking home in boots filled with their own blood--that is, if they were able to walk at all.
Convicts who attempted to escape were sent to tiny Norfolk Island, 600 miles east of Australia, where the conditions
were even more inhumane. The only hope of escape from the horror of Norfolk Island was a "game" in which groups
of three prisoners drew straws. The short straw was killed as painlessly as possible and a judge was then shipped in
to put the other two on trial, one playing the role of killer, the other as witness.
As the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788, little did they know that
historians in years to come would be disputing the real reasons for the British
Governments plans to establish a colony there.
The Botany Bay debate commenced amongst historians in the 1960s after Blaineys The
Tyranny of Distance with his theory of Botany Bay as a colony for the supply and
cultivation of flax and naval timbers, even though it was Dallas who was the first to
question the absurd traditional view back in 1952 with his consideration being given to
the naval sea trade theory.
The traditional view in the debate is that Botany Bay was the chosen place for the felon,
the outcast, the offscourings of British society, and Bartlett in 1976 wrote: There is no
evidence that either Prime Minister Pitt or any member of his cabinet thought of Botany
Bay as anything more than a convenient place distance enough for the safe disposal of
social waste.
This traditional approach is also supported by Atkinson who believes that Botany Bay
was chosen for a convict settlement not because of, but in spite of the possibility that it
might become a trading post.
The idea of establishing a colony at Botany Bay started with the Matra proposal in
August 1783, even before the end of the War of Independence between America and
England. James Matra who travelled with Cook to the South Seas in 1770, spoke of
New South Wales as having good soil, advantages of flax cultivation, trade with China
and others, the availability of timber for ships masts and Sir Joseph Banks support.
Matras idea was the possible new colony could be used by those Americans who had
remained loyal to Britain in the War of Independence such as himself, this idea
however was rejected. He failed to mention or consider convicts, but later amended the
proposal to include transportees (convicts) among the settlers but as cultivators in their
own right rather than as forced labour after an interview with Lord Sydney, Secretary of
State for Colonies. Sir Joseph Banks actually had earlier suggested Botany Bay as a
possible site for a British Settlement whilst aboard the Endeavour in May 1770.
Did the British government consider the type of labour force that would be required to
establish a colony or was Botany Bay just seen as a solution to the ever growing
number of convict hulks along the River Thames ?
Governor Phillip soon after arriving in 1788 requested carpenters, masons, bricklayers
to help with the setting up of the colony along with many tools of the trades. Yet the
proposal for the establishment of the new colony being Heads of a Plan addressed the
effective disposing of the convicts to the new colony, along with the cultivation of flax,
required stores and provisions, clothing for convicts, how the objective of the convict
colony overrides the costs involved, naval staff and such.
With Britain continuing to send convicts to Australia for many decades, the cost involved
in transporting convicts must have been less that dealing with the problem of the over
crowded hulks and goals in England.
The tools sent with the First Fleet were of poor standard, with only twelve carpenters
amongst the vast number of convicts. Womens clothing was also of poor quality and
quantity plus old aged and ailing convicts were sent. The bad planning and outcome
does not support the belief of the non-traditional view of the reasons behind the decision
to colonise Botany Bay: The great southern port and the development of a flax
industry for naval use dreamed up by recent writers as the reason for the settlement
rather than for the disposal of unwanted convicts seem to have been somewhat
negated by this sorry account of inadequate supplies of even the most elementary
equipment.
The traditionalist may well ask that if Botany Bay was planned to be the great southern
port why then did the first free settlers not arrive until 1793 on the Bellona, eight years
after the arrival of the First Fleet, again adding more baffling options and outcomes to
the Botany Bay debate.
Governor Phillip was given instruction to cultivate flax: And as it has been humbly
represented to us that advantages may be derived from the flax-plant which is found in
the islands not far distant from the intended settlementexcellence of a variety of
maritime purposesan article of exportthat you do send home (Britain) samples of
this articleinstruct you further upon this subject.
These orders have been part of the non-traditionalists justification to their point of view.
Traditionalist historians feel the possibility of the flax industry at Botany Bay was just a
possible extra benefit to England when options for the convicts were being decided.
Yet contracted tradesmen were still being sent to New South Wales in 1792 to help with
the colony at Norfolk Island and others. Sparse flax producing equipment was sent out
with the First Fleet which hardly indicates strong encouragement for any flax enterprise
or faith in the success of the new venture.
The traditionalist stands firm with the opinion that Botany Bay was only colonised to rid
the nations (Britain) prisons and hulks of convicts. Frost believes the opposite is true.
He has approached the Botany Bay debate by embracing the whole picture and the
possible strategic plan with the Pitt Cabinet decision to set up a colony was for a
number of motives; naval trade, supply of flax and naval timber from Norfolk Island and
the fact the use of Britains excess convicts (labour) may well help serve in these
purposes.
Frost also reviews the possible new political and economic benefits that may have been
achieved if they were included in Britains decision process in regards to the new
colony. Botany Bay had already been surveyed by Cook in 1770 noting the (so called)
natural resources available, by colonising at New South Wales, Britain would protect
Cooks right of possession over Botany Bay from the French and Dutch, thus giving
them more positional power over the seas and any possible trade. As the First Fleet
arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788, little did they know that historians in years to
come would be disputing the real reasons for the British Governments plans to
establish a colony there.
The Botany Bay debate commenced amongst historians in the 1960s after Blaineys The
Tyranny of Distance with his theory of Botany Bay as a colony for the supply and
cultivation of flax and naval timbers, even though it was Dallas who was the first to
question the absurd traditional view back in 1952 with his consideration being given to
the naval sea trade theory.
The traditional view in the debate is that Botany Bay was the chosen place for the felon,
the outcast, the offscourings of British society, and Bartlett in 1976 wrote: There is no
evidence that either Prime Minister Pitt or any member of his cabinet thought of Botany
Bay as anything more than a convenient place distance enough for the safe disposal of
social waste.
This traditional approach is also supported by Atkinson who believes that Botany Bay
was chosen for a convict settlement not because of, but in spite of the possibility that it
might become a trading post.
The idea of establishing a colony at Botany Bay started with the Matra proposal in
August 1783, even before the end of the War of Independence between America and
England. James Matra who travelled with Cook to the South Seas in 1770, spoke of
New South Wales as having good soil, advantages of flax cultivation, trade with China
and others, the availability of timber for ships masts and Sir Joseph Banks support.
Matras idea was the possible new colony could be used by those Americans who had
remained loyal to Britain in the War of Independence such as himself, this idea
however was rejected. He failed to mention or consider convicts, but later amended the
proposal to include transportees (convicts) among the settlers but as cultivators in their
own right rather than as forced labour after an interview with Lord Sydney, Secretary of
State for Colonies. Sir Joseph Banks actually had earlier suggested Botany Bay as a
possible site for a British Settlement whilst aboard the Endeavour in May 1770.
Did the British government consider the type of labour force that would be required to
establish a colony or was Botany Bay just seen as a solution to the ever growing
number of convict hulks along the River Thames ?
Governor Phillip soon after arriving in 1788 requested carpenters, masons, bricklayers
to help with the setting up of the colony along with many tools of the trades. Yet the
proposal for the establishment of the new colony being Heads of a Plan addressed the
effective disposing of the convicts to the new colony, along with the cultivation of flax,
required stores and provisions, clothing for convicts, how the objective of the convict
colony overrides the costs involved, naval staff and such.
With Britain continuing to send convicts to Australia for many decades, the cost involved
in transporting convicts must have been less that dealing with the problem of the over
crowded hulks and goals in England.
The tools sent with the First Fleet were of poor standard, with only twelve carpenters
amongst the vast number of convicts. Womens clothing was also of poor quality and
quantity plus old aged and ailing convicts were sent. The bad planning and outcome
does not support the belief of the non-traditional view of the reasons behind the decision
to colonise Botany Bay: The great southern port and the development of a flax
industry for naval use dreamed up by recent writers as the reason for the settlement
rather than for the disposal of unwanted convicts seem to have been somewhat
negated by this sorry account of inadequate supplies of even the most elementary
equipment.
The traditionalist may well ask that if Botany Bay was planned to be the great southern
port why then did the first free settlers not arrive until 1793 on the Bellona, eight years
after the arrival of the First Fleet, again adding more baffling options and outcomes to
the Botany Bay debate.
Governor Phillip was given instruction to cultivate flax: And as it has been humbly
represented to us that advantages may be derived from the flax-plant which is found in
the islands not far distant from the intended settlementexcellence of a variety of
maritime purposesan article of exportthat you do send home (Britain) samples of
this articleinstruct you further upon this subject.
These orders have been part of the non-traditionalists justification to their point of view.
Traditionalist historians feel the possibility of the flax industry at Botany Bay was just a
possible extra benefit to England when options for the convicts were being decided.
Yet contracted tradesmen were still being sent to New South Wales in 1792 to help with
the colony at Norfolk Island and others. Sparse flax producing equipment was sent out
with the First Fleet which hardly indicates strong encouragement for any flax enterprise
or faith in the success of the new venture.
The traditionalist stands firm with the opinion that Botany Bay was only colonised to rid
the nations (Britain) prisons and hulks of convicts. Frost believes the opposite is true.
He has approached the Botany Bay debate by embracing the whole picture and the
possible strategic plan with the Pitt Cabinet decision to set up a colony was for a
number of motives; naval trade, supply of flax and naval timber from Norfolk Island and
the fact the use of Britains excess convicts (labour) may well help serve in these
purposes.
Frost also reviews the possible new political and economic benefits that may have been
achieved if they were included in Britains decision process in regards to the new
colony. Botany Bay had already been surveyed by Cook in 1770 noting the (so called)
natural resources available, by colonising at New South Wales, Britain would protect
Cooks right of possession over Botany Bay from the French and Dutch, thus giving
them more positional power over the seas and any possible trade.
During the 1960s debate, Blainey (presenting the flax and naval timber theory) accused
Bolton of giving confusing comments in summarising his theory and argument against
the new ideas for the reasons behind the decision made about Botany Bay.
Blainey believes of the logic behind the: British politicians (who) did not have to
emphasise that flax and timber were vital to their country; it was too obvious to be
spelled out. He accused Bolton of changing and misunderstanding the content and
interpretation of his (Blaineys) research and writings.
This trend seems to have been continued by other opinionators on the Botany Bay
debate. During the 1960s disagreement: The fact that New South Wales was almost
entirely a convict settlement tended to be overlooked. Both the flax and timber theorists
and the China route party have had to admit that the early years of the New South
Wales colony did not triumphantly vindicate their arguments.
The Botany Bay debate has been expanded by questioning the 1786 draft, unsigned
letter to Hamilton, Under Secretary to Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. In this letter the
convicts that were to be sent to Botany Bay would be employed in Cultivating Grain and
other Vegetable productions for their subsistence.
A paragraph that features in this draft was omitted from the actual letter sent. In this the
convicts are refer to as those dreadful Banditti and the most intriguing statement in this
omitted paragraph is But above all, the Cultivation of the Flax Plant seems to be the
most considerable object Roe has asked whether the significance of the paragraph
(content) is either enhanced or diminished by its eventual omission is a very open
question.
Mackay is yet another who has expressed a view on the Botany Bay debate,
commenting on other historians opinions. He argued against the strategic position of
Botany Bay in relationship to naval trade. Like many, Mackay feels that the
establishment of the colony was rushed and poorly done and crisis orientated not a
good start if the motives were really for naval trade and timber supply.
After viewing many of what seems to be a circle of comments and opinions that form the
Botany Bay debate, he then accused the non-traditionalists of: Distorting our records of
the past, and sought to create a myth of a better national origin. They have also
overestimated the capacity of governments in the late eighteenth century.
Mackay stills acknowledges that regardless of the shoddy way in which Botany Bay
was set up that from such inauspicious beginnings Australia grew to maturity and
nationhood which is part of our heritage. But is this really what the Botany Bay debate
is all about?
The question of exceptions has also come to play a critical role in the debate about the
origins of the penal colony in New South Wales. Should the debate be confined to the
reasons and available records of the decision making process as to why Botany Bay
was chosen for a British Colony and not what actually happened at the new Colony?
Many of the opinions, assumptions and counter arguments presented in this never
ending debate are supported with proof of the writers belief and explanation. The actual
decision process to colonise Botany Bay can be puzzling and more than twofold
depending on the approach one has to the available documents and incorporating the
outcomes of the new settlement.
One aspect of writing about history is based on the availability and range of documents
along with the approach and interpretation of them by the researchers. Historians of
different gender, culture and backgrounds may well render different versions and/or
opinions of the same source/s. And so the Botany Bay Debate will continue.
What ever approach one takes, all agree that one of the results achieved by the
decision to establish the Settlement was to relieve the pressure of the British authorities
to find a solution to the ever growing numbers of criminals.
References & Bibliography
Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. I.
Documents:
Banks, Joseph Sir. Extract from the Endeavour journal of Banks, May 1770 located with
Banks papers, Series 35.01 CY 3008/602 and CY 3008/603 at Mitchell Library Sydney.
Letter to Hamilton, Under Secretary to Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, draft, unsigned from
possible Lord Sydney, Secretary of State of the Colonies, dated 24 October 1786 at
Colonial office papers 202/5 of reel 56, National University Mitchell Library series
photographed in the Public Office London, transcript in Michael Roe,Motives for
Australian Settlement; a document, in The Founding of Australia: The Argument about
Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney.
Heads of a Plan, in The Founding of Australia:The Argument about Australias Orgins, ed.
Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Matra, James Maria. Proposal for establishing a Settlement in New South Wales, 23
August 1783 in The Founding of Australia:The Argument about Australias Orgins, ed. Ged
Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Secondary: Books.
Barlett, Norman. 1776 1976: Australia and America through 200 years, Ure Smith,
Sydney, 1976.
Dunn, Cathy. Ladies of the Royal Admiral 1792, the author, Milton, 1996.
Eldershaw, M. Barnard. Phillip of Australia, Augus & Robertson, Sydney, 1972.
Gillen, Mollie. The Search for John Small: First Fleet, Library of Australia History, North
Sydney, 1985.
Mackay, David. A Place of Exile: European Settlement of New South Wales, Oxford
University Press,Melbourne, 1985.
Martin, Ged (ed.). The Founding of Australia:The Argument about Australias Orgins, Hale
and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Maynard, Margaret. Fashioned from Penury: Dress as Cultural Practice in Colonial Australia,
Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1994.
Molony, John. The Penguin Bicentennial History of Australia: The Story of 200 Years,
Penguin Books, Ringwood Victoria, 1988.
Articles.
Abbott, Graham. The excepted cost of the Botany Bay scheme in Journal of the Royal
Historical Society, Vol. 81, Part 2, Sydney,1995.
Atkinson, Allan. A Counter-Reposte in The Founding of Australia: The Argument about
Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Blainey, Geoffrey. Botany Bay or Gotham City, in The Founding of Australia: The
Argument about Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Frost, Alan. The Decision to Colonise New South Wales, Australians to 1788, in
series Australians: A Historical Library, 1987.
Martin, Ged. Summary and suggestions for further reading in The Founding of Australia:
The Argument about Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney,
1981
Roe, Michael. Motives for Australian Settlement; a document, inThe Founding of
Australia: The Argument about Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger,
Sydney, 1981.

During the 1960s debate, Blainey (presenting the flax and naval timber theory) accused
Bolton of giving confusing comments in summarising his theory and argument against
the new ideas for the reasons behind the decision made about Botany Bay.
Blainey believes of the logic behind the: British politicians (who) did not have to
emphasise that flax and timber were vital to their country; it was too obvious to be
spelled out. He accused Bolton of changing and misunderstanding the content and
interpretation of his (Blaineys) research and writings.
This trend seems to have been continued by other opinionators on the Botany Bay
debate. During the 1960s disagreement: The fact that New South Wales was almost
entirely a convict settlement tended to be overlooked. Both the flax and timber theorists
and the China route party have had to admit that the early years of the New South
Wales colony did not triumphantly vindicate their arguments.
The Botany Bay debate has been expanded by questioning the 1786 draft, unsigned
letter to Hamilton, Under Secretary to Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. In this letter the
convicts that were to be sent to Botany Bay would be employed in Cultivating Grain and
other Vegetable productions for their subsistence.
A paragraph that features in this draft was omitted from the actual letter sent. In this the
convicts are refer to as those dreadful Banditti and the most intriguing statement in this
omitted paragraph is But above all, the Cultivation of the Flax Plant seems to be the
most considerable object Roe has asked whether the significance of the paragraph
(content) is either enhanced or diminished by its eventual omission is a very open
question.
Mackay is yet another who has expressed a view on the Botany Bay debate,
commenting on other historians opinions. He argued against the strategic position of
Botany Bay in relationship to naval trade. Like many, Mackay feels that the
establishment of the colony was rushed and poorly done and crisis orientated not a
good start if the motives were really for naval trade and timber supply.
After viewing many of what seems to be a circle of comments and opinions that form the
Botany Bay debate, he then accused the non-traditionalists of: Distorting our records of
the past, and sought to create a myth of a better national origin. They have also
overestimated the capacity of governments in the late eighteenth century.
Mackay stills acknowledges that regardless of the shoddy way in which Botany Bay
was set up that from such inauspicious beginnings Australia grew to maturity and
nationhood which is part of our heritage. But is this really what the Botany Bay debate
is all about?
The question of exceptions has also come to play a critical role in the debate about the
origins of the penal colony in New South Wales. Should the debate be confined to the
reasons and available records of the decision making process as to why Botany Bay
was chosen for a British Colony and not what actually happened at the new Colony?
Many of the opinions, assumptions and counter arguments presented in this never
ending debate are supported with proof of the writers belief and explanation. The actual
decision process to colonise Botany Bay can be puzzling and more than twofold
depending on the approach one has to the available documents and incorporating the
outcomes of the new settlement.
One aspect of writing about history is based on the availability and range of documents
along with the approach and interpretation of them by the researchers. Historians of
different gender, culture and backgrounds may well render different versions and/or
opinions of the same source/s. And so the Botany Bay Debate will continue.
What ever approach one takes, all agree that one of the results achieved by the
decision to establish the Settlement was to relieve the pressure of the British authorities
to find a solution to the ever growing numbers of criminals.
References & Bibliography
Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. I.
Documents:
Banks, Joseph Sir. Extract from the Endeavour journal of Banks, May 1770 located with
Banks papers, Series 35.01 CY 3008/602 and CY 3008/603 at Mitchell Library Sydney.
Letter to Hamilton, Under Secretary to Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, draft, unsigned from
possible Lord Sydney, Secretary of State of the Colonies, dated 24 October 1786 at
Colonial office papers 202/5 of reel 56, National University Mitchell Library series
photographed in the Public Office London, transcript in Michael Roe,Motives for
Australian Settlement; a document, in The Founding of Australia: The Argument about
Australias Origins, ed. Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney.
Heads of a Plan, in The Founding of Australia:The Argument about Australias Orgins, ed.
Ged Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.
Matra, James Maria. Proposal for establishing a Settlement in New South Wales, 23
August 1783 in The Founding of Australia:The Argument about Australias Orgins, ed. Ged
Martin, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1981.