The NSW Corps, Norfolk Island and Boston’s Sow

The NSW Corps, Norfolk Island and Boston’s Sow

• 
  Female convicts who accompanied the soldiers were allowed to stay with them.
  
• 
  A distinction was made between the civil/convict ration and military rations until full rations were restored.
  
• 
  Several overseers who had cleared land for themselves were dispossessed in favour of the NSW Corps.
  
• 
  The NSW Corps received a preferential distribution of alcohol.
  
• 
  Soldiers were intimate with convicts, gambling and “connecting” with their wives.
  

From March to November 1793, Norfolk Island remained isolated until the Britannia, under Captain Raven, arrived, enroute to Bengal. One of the passengers on board was Captain Nicholas Nepean of the NSW Corps who was going home on convalescent leave. On his own initiative, King detained the Britannia for ten days, leaving the Island under the temporary command of Captain Nepean while he took two Maoris home to New Zealand. The Maoris had been acquired by Captain Vancouver and sent to Norfolk Island on the assumption that they would be able to provide insights into flax-weaving. Unfortunately these Maoris did not have this skill and pined for home. While King’s gesture may well have been entirely humanitarian, New Zealand historians have suggested that his visit may have been an opportunistic placement of himself for a future governorship.¹⁹ We know about King’s visit to New Zealand from a private letter of the nineteenth of November 1793²⁰ to Evan Nepean, Under-Secretary of State and Captain Nepean’s older brother.

• 
  in June 1793 Abbott had engaged some soldiers to pick a quarrel with a settler and beat him, which led to a complaint coming to the Lieutenant-Governor.
  
• 
  Abbott’s second in command was a drunkard and not fit to succeed Abbott should he suddenly die.
  
• 
  Lieutenant Abbott neglected to pass on a complaint made by a junior officer regarding the unfair distribution of rations in an outlying settlement to the Lieutenant-Governor.
  

Following are the two extracts describing the confrontation and Lieutenant Abbott’s near mutinous behaviour. That Ensign Piper later came to Lieutenant-Governor King to deny that Lieutenant Abbott spoke on his behalf supports King’s concerns.

Lieutenant Governor King on Lieutenant Abbott

‘CAPTAIN ABBOTT.

In my public letter to Mr. Dundas respecting my going to New Zealand I have suppressed a circumstance respecting my leaving the command of the island to your brother during my ten days' absence. For my reason I must refer you to the above letter. When I had resolved on going, I issued the General Order which is an enclosure in No. 2.²¹ Mr. Abbot, who is the senior of the three subalterns, came to me, and in the most contemptuous, and I may almost say mutinous, manner (in the presence of the Deputy Surveyor),²² and positively and unequivocally (in his own name and that of the other subs.), refused obeying the order in any one respect. I endeav'd to point out what I thought the consequences of such behaviour might be, but that only seemed to make him more irritable and obstinate in continuing his avowed intention of disobeying the order in toto, which he doubted if Capt. N. would obey or not. On my sending for your brother, on putting the question to him and stating Mr. Abbot's conduct (which he avowed before Capt. N.), he answered that he considered himself as an officer liable to be called into service in these colonies on any emergency, and that he considered it his duty, as a capt. belonging to the N.S.W. Corps and in full pay, to obey any legal order which he might receive from a superior for the good of the King's service. After Mr. Abbot had for some time endeavoured to persuade Capt. N. that he was totally incompetent to take the command, and that I had grievously oppressed him (Lt. Abbot) in thinking of such a thing, I cut the matter short by telling Lt. A. that as Capt. Nepean thought it his duty to obey my orders he might do as he chose, on which he left me, saying he should consider more about it. It was now seven o'clock in the evening, and I intended to embark early next morning. The next morning, at seven o'clock, Lieut. Abbot came to me and said that he should not retard the service by continuing a disobedience to the order, but that he should represent the oppression he laboured under. At nine o'clock, my commission, with my order to Capt. N., was read, and I embarked, and neither at my embarking or landing did any one of those officers attend me. After my return Lieut. Abbot sent Ensign Piper to me to ask whether I meant to write home respecting what had taken place previous to my embarking, because if I did he would make a representation to ye Sec'y at War. I declined giving that officer any information on that head. Soon after I received a letter from Ensign Piper denying that he had ever given Lient. Abbot the least reason to make use of his name (in refusing to obey the order), as Lieut. Abbot had not even spoke to him on the business previous to his (Lt. A.) coming to me and making use of both the officers' names. The other sub'n was so much intoxicated with liquor that he was incapable of giving any opinion. Mr. Abbot thought proper to wait upon me, and before the D'y Surveyor he acknowledged that neither of the officers gave him permission to make use of their names, and that he had never consulted them previous to his making me that declaration, but that they since were and continued of his opinion. As this is the substance of this business, I must leave you to make your comments on it. Independent of the necessity I found myself under to leave a suff’t number of officers to form court-martials, I had another reason which, in my opinion, militated against my leaving Lieut. Abbot in command here. Six months ago that officer engaged some soldiers to pick a quarrel with a settler in order to beat him, which the settler having notice of had collected other settlers to repel force by force, but, fortunately for the peace and tranquility of this island, the soldiers did not carry their plan into execution. This came before me as a complaint. This was one reason which I had not to give the command to Lt. A. Another reason was that the officer next to him is a beastly drunkard, and by no means fit to succeed Lt. Abbot in case of death, had I been inclined to leave the government with ye latter. I find some kind of representation is sent by Lt. A. to the Secretary at War, I do not wish to injure Mr. A., although I have great reason and provocation. I have therefore suppressed making any mention of this transaction in my publick letters, leaving it to you to make what use of this you may think proper.’²³

Extract of a private letter by Phillip Gidley King to Under Secretary Nepean, 19/11/1793

‘To my publick Letter respecting my trip to N.Zealand

… I hope my proceedings in that business will be approved of & I am confident much good & publick utility would result to Her Colonies Great Britain & Her Colonies if a Settlement was made at the Bay of Islands or the River Thames however I have given you my sentiments on this in my preceding Letters, to which I must refer you, with this addition that what I have since in the very partial opinion which my going there since I went there I am more confirmed in my ideas of its apparent utility. In my publick Letter to Mr Dundass I have supported a circumstance respecting my leaving the Command of the Id during my absence with your Brother When I resolved upon going: I issued the General order a Copy of which is in my Enclosures to Mr Dundass, Mr Abbot waited on came to me in the most improper Manner & before the DY Surveyor he positively & unequivocally /in his own name & that of ye other Subs/ refused obeying the order, thereby? denying [indecipherable] my authority to make such an in one respect, I endeavoured to point out what I thought the Consequences of such behaviour might be but that only served to make him more irritable & obstinate in continuing his avowed disobedience intention of totally disobeying the order, which he doubted whether Capt Nepean would accept would obey or not. On my sending for Capt Nepean on my putting ye Question to him said he considered himself as an Officer liable to be called into Service in these Colonies on any Emergency 8c that he considered it his duty to obey any legal order which he might receive from a Superior Officer for the good of the Kings Service — Mr A did not now think proper to continue his declaration of disobeying the order but said that he should consider further about it & left me & intended to Embark early the next Morng it was now 6 oclock in the Evening & he did not think proper to obey the order order by untill 7 Oclock the next Morng when he told me that he should not retard the service by continuing this Disobedience, but that he should represent the Oppression he laboured under, as this is the substance of this business I must leave you to make your Comments on it. A current account of that proceed Officers Conduct I shall by the first opportunity lay before Major Grose, & if it appears to Major Grose that I made any improper use of My Authority I shall then lay before him the following reasons /which/ independant of the necessity I found my self under to leave a Sufft Number of Officers to form a Court Marshal.) in my opinion militated against my leaving Lt Abbot commanding officer in charge of ye Govt during My Absence, That Officer had in some manner? made himself since had some 6 Months ago, engaged some private Soldiers to pick a Quarrell with a Settler in order to beat him, which the Settler having notice of had collected other Settlers to repel force by force, but fortunately for the peace & Tranquility of this Id the Soldiers did not execute this put it in Execution this came before me as a complaint That officer has also been guilty of a Neglect of Duty in not laying before me, a Complaint made to him by the Jr. Officer in Command at Phillip burgh respecting alleged unfair proceedings in the issuing of provisions, the Next Sub1- Officer in Command to Lieutt Abbot is a perfect drunkard & by no means fit to succeed to the Charge of the Id in case of accidents happening to Lt Abbot, had I been inclined to leave him in the Govt with him.’²⁴
The mutiny on the King’s Birthday, 18^th January, 1794, was the culmination of escalating tension between the soldiers of the NSW Corps and the settlers and convicts. This description of events is based upon a compilation of King’s despatch of 30/01/94 to Grose giving an account of the events leading the sending a number of soldiers back to Sydney and King’s letter to Dundas of 10^th March 1794.
In the last week of 1793 conflict and tension between the soldiers, convicts and settlers escalated. On 25^th December 1793 four soldiers, including Baker, Cardell²⁵ and Downey, attacked a number of settlers including Smith and Dring. Smith and Dring asked the soldiers be forgiven and King granted the request. On the following day W. Dring a free settler and the island’s coxswain, was fined for assaulting Charles Windsor, a soldier. Dring had objected to Charles Windsor “connecting” with Dring’s wife. On the same day, Scott, a sailor-settler, was also fined for assaulting a soldier.
Also on the 26^th of December 1793 a court martial took place in which Baker was charged with some convicts of conspiring to steal a boat and escape. The convicts were flogged and Baker imprisoned to be sent to Sydney. As well, two other soldiers were imprisoned for stealing from the King’s Store while on guard duty.
A Court martial of Cardell and Downing took place on the 27^th of December 1793. On the 28^th of December 1793 Cardell vowed to punish Dring for which he was court-martialled again on the 29^th of December 1793 and flogged.
A play was planned for the night of 18^th January, the King’s birthday. During the day a soldier, Jones, had beaten a marine settler, John McCarthy. The settlers were alarmed. A dispute over seats between Serjeant Whittle and the constable, Thomas Crowder, took place prior to and after the play. King personally suppressed the dispute after the play and ordered the arrest of Bannister, a soldier. John Flemming, a soldier, told King that Charles Cooper, a convict, had struck Bannister, which led to Cooper’s detention as well.
King then went home thinking that the situation was under control. Lieutenant Abbott did not tell King until the morning of the 19^th that the soldiers had been in a state of mutiny on the previous night. According to Abbott the soldiers resented Bannister being imprisoned after being struck by a convict and wanted him freed and refused his orders to disperse. Abbott told King that he finally got the men to go to their barracks after he told them he would see the Lieutenant-Governor in the morning.
The volatility of the situation was confirmed on the evening of 20^th of January 1794 when Thomas Spencer, a settler, reported to King that the drummer, Colston/Coulson, had warned him that a number of soldiers were going to get him and a convict, Alexander Dollis, reported that the soldiers had taken an oath to kill Dring.
George Coulson, drummer, gave evidence to Lieutenant Bethwick on 21^st January,²⁶ which confirmed Dollis’s report of a murderous conspiracy and showed how dangerous the men were. His evidence also contradicted Abbott’s account of the parade ground mutiny. According to Coulson, when the detachment returned to their barracks they said “that they had got Lieut’t Abbott’s word that Bannister should be released in the morning, and that they would wait until Lieutenant Abbott return’d from the Governor’s, and if they found that he was not released they would release him”. Whatever the truth of the matter, Abbott had been in a precarious position on the parade ground as, according to Coulson, the serjeants had stayed in the barracks.
On the morning of 21^st Abbott confirmed Colston’s account to King. As McCarthy was determined to follow up the assault upon him on the 18^th, King was concerned the soldiers would mutiny if Private Jones were confined. He determined on disarming the soldiers. In the afternoon of 21^st Abbott, Bethwick and Piper agreed to the disarming. King directed that a party of soldiers be sent to Phillip Island for feathers and guards be sent to Queensborough. On 22^nd the soldiers’ arms were seized. A settler militia was formed and provided with arms. Twenty mutineers were subsequently arrested and nine were imprisoned.
Fortuitously the Francis arrived on the morning of the 23^rd of January, 1794 with despatches from Grose. Bad weather delayed the return of the Francis until the second of February, 1794. Among those who returned were Lieutenant Bethwick, Serjeant Ikin and the mutineers.
Lieutenant-Governor Grose responded quickly. On the 15^th of February 1794 he convened a NSW Corps Court of Enquiry,²⁷ which included Captain Paterson, Captain Foveaux, Captain Johnston, Lieutenant Macarthur, Lieutenant Townson, Lieutenant Prentice, Lieutenant Rowley, Ensign McKellar, Ensign Lucas, and Quarter-master Laycock. Evidence was heard from Lieutenant Bethwick and Serjeant Ikin. Not surprisingly this enquiry conducted by the NSW Corps into the behaviour of its own found “that the soldiers were forced into the disorders they committed on the 18^th January by the licentious behaviour of the convicts”.²⁸
On the 25^th of February, 1794 Lieutenant-Governor Grose wrote to Lieutenant-Governor King, telling him how “astonished and mortified” he was at King’s “ill-judged and unwarrantable proceedings”. He ordered that the militia be disarmed and that their weapons be put on the schooner Francis for distribution among the Hawkesbury settlers.²⁹ As well, he ordered the return of Charles Grimes’ to carry out surveying duties on the Hawkesbury. He sent Lieutenant Towson to take command of the detachment with additional orders which are worth quoting in full because they show how the NSW Corps was operating outside the conventions of English Common Law by elevating the rights of soldiers over others.

Lieutenant – Governor Grose to Lieutenant – Governor King

‘[Enclosure No. 3.]

Sir, Sydney, 25th February, 1794.

In consequence of the disturbance which has happened at Norfolk Island you* will cause the following Orders, which I have judged it necessary to give, to be made public, vizt.:—
Any convict, whether the term of his transportation is expired or not, who shall be accused of striking a soldier is immediately to be given up to the commanding officer of the detachment, who is himself to investigate the matter; and if it appears to him that the soldier has been struck, he will immediately order the offender to be punished with one hundred lashes by the drummers of his detachment. No provocation that a soldier can give is ever to be admitted as an excuse for the convicts striking the soldier.
If any convict complains of having been ill-treated by a soldier, the offender is to be brought to a court-martial, and any abuse on the part of a soldier to the convicts is never to be passed over unnoticed.
As it appears necessary for the safety of the inhabitants to employ a number of convicts in the character of constables, people of this description are to understand that they are not on any pretence whatever to stop or seize the soldier, although he should be detected in an unlawful act. On these occasions they must endeavour to make themselves acquainted with his person, and make immediate application to an officer or non-commissioned officer, who will on such information send a party of soldiers to apprehend the delinquent.
Any convict who shall give abusive language to a soldier is to be immediately seized and confined in the guard-house, and if on enquiry it appears to the commanding officer of the detachment, who is himself always to examine whatever disputes arise amongst the soldiers, that there is cause of complaint on the part of the soldier, he will state the circumstance to the Lieut.-Governor, who will order such corporal punishment to the convict as he thinks proper.
Officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers are of their own authority to confine any convicts who misbehave, and any resistance on the part of the convict will be severely punished. It is however, expected that no convict is confined without sufficient reason, and that neither officer or soldier on any account attempt to beat the convicts.
Any soldier misbehaving is to be brought to a court-martial, which, on application from the Lieut.-Goveruor to the commanding officer of the detachment, will always be assembled; but should his crime be of such enormity as to render it expedient to bring him to trial either by a general court-martial or a criminal court, he will of course be forwarded to Sydney by the first opportunity, being in the interim assigned to the care of the commanding officer of the detachment, who will confine him either in the black-hole or guard-house, as he shall consider most expedient, suffering him also to take such exercise under the care of a sentinel as he may at any time think necessary for the preservation of his health.
The officers being fully equal to correct any crimes committed by the soldiers, there exists no necessity for taking a soldier before a Justice of the Peace. In case, therefore, of complaint, the commanding officer of the detachment is to be referred to, who will never suffer the soldier to be given to the custody of a convict constable.

FRANS. GROSE.

* The document was addressed to Lieutenant-Governor King.^’30

The Orders did not meet with the approval of the Home Office. In his despatch of 10^th June 1795 to Governor Hunter, the Duke of Portland included the following opinions on Lieutenant-Governor King’s expedition to New Zealand and Lieutenant-Governor Grose’s orders to Lieutenant-Governor King following the NSW Corps mutiny. Portland’s objection to King leaving Norfolk Island without communicating with Grose is quite valid. However, given that there was no communication between Sydney and Norfolk Island between March 1793 and February 1794, Portland’s objection only highlights the difficulties that time and distance posed for colonial officials.
Portland accurately identified the problems on Norfolk Island as stemming from the failure of the officer in command preventing the soldiers from being “improperly permitted to mix and interfere with the other inhabitants” ^.31 His main point was that in disputes before the Law there was no “preference or distinction from being of a different class or distinction”. In a classic example of bureaucratic understatement Portland ventures the opinion that Grose’s General Order “must have been hastily conceived on the pressure of the moment”.

Lord Portland to Lieutenant – Governor Grose

‘I have maturely considered the statement made by Lieutenant-Governor King of the transactions in Norfolk Island, referred to in Lieut.-Governor Grose's letter of the 30th August, and I am far from imputing to Lieut.-Governor King any degree of blame which calls for serious reprehension. What I most object to is, his quitting his government and departing with the New Zealanders in the Britannia, without previous communication with Lieut.-Governor Grose.
With respect to the mutinous detachment that was sent from the island, I am truly sorry to observe that their conduct was such as to merit much severer treatment than it met with. The source of their disorderly conduct and of their disobedience clearly arose from their having been improperly permitted to mix and interfere with the other inhabitants, but particularly with the convicts, from whom, as their situation and their duties are perfectly separate and distinct, so should their conversation and connections. The best proof I can receive that both the one and the other are properly governed, will be that matters of dispute seldom arise between them, and for this plain reason, because they should neither of them ever be in the way of it. But whenever such disputes do arise, strict and impartial justice must decide between the parties, for whoever misconducts himself must be considered as losing all title to preference or distinction from being of a different class or description.
I have thought it necessary to express my sentiments more fully on this subject, because I am inclined to think that the General Orders of Lieut.-Govr. Grose, dated 25th February, 1794, transmitted to Lieut.-Governor King, must have been hastily conceived on the pressure of the moment, and without due attention to the principle I have above mentioned, and which in the distribution of justice should never be lost sight of.
I am of opinion it would be better, whenever such disputes arise, which I trust will be very rarely, that the complaint in the first instance should always be guided by and follow the nature and description of the person.
Thus, if a convict, or any civil person, is complained of, the complaint should be to the Governor, or the nearest magistrate; if a military person, to the Commander-in-Chief, or nearest officer, as the case may require.

Portland’³²
When Governor Hunter³³ replaced Paterson in September 1795 he soon found himself in the midst of a court case involving members of the NSW Corps and a settler that had similarities with events on Norfolk Island and involved personalities first met on Norfolk Island. In December 1795 a court was convened to hear a complaint by a settler, John Boston, against Quartermaster Laycock,³⁴ Ensign McKellar and Privates Faithfull and Eaddy/Addy of the NSW Corps.³⁵ In October 1795, Private Faithfull shot dead Boston’s sow in accordance with an order warning that wandering pigs without nose rings would be shot. The shooting took place in Captain Foveaux’s paddock which was probably on the east side of the cove as the dispute took place near the homes of Palmer and Skirving, two of the Scottish Martyrs.
Boston alleged that when he protested at the shooting, Quartermaster Laycock and Ensign McKellar urged Privates Faithfull and Eaddy/Addy to assault Boston. Serjeants Jamison, Hudson, Ikin and Whittle were in the area. Serjeants Jamison and Ikin claimed that Boston struck the first blow and that Faithfull was defending himself when he struck Boston with a loaded musket. Jamison denied hearing Laycock call upon Faithfull to thrash Boston. The case was complicated by Boston’s claim that Laycock had demanded a sum of money from him when he first arrived, a debt which he denied.
The court found for Boston against Laycock and Faithfull, but not McKellar or Eaddy. Boston was threatened with violence on leaving the court and had to return there to seek protection. Private Faithfull appealed against the decision and lodged a memorial on the matter. Governor Hunter was of the opinion that as an illiterate, Faithfull did not understand what he was doing.
Faithfull’s memorial was important because in the concluding part he placed himself outside Common Law by positioning himself not just as a soldier, but also as a peace officer. Given that he signed the document with his mark it is likely that the document was written for him by one of his superior officers.

Private Faithfull’s Memorial

‘Your Memorialist humbly conceives, that in shooting the Pig of the Prosecutor he was acting in immediate obedience of the Orders of the Government. – that when executing this, or any other Order of the Commander in Chief, his situation is similar to that of a Peace Officer in England, when obeying the orders of a Magistrate. - It has been admitted by the Prosecutor that he called your Memorialist a "d – rascal" and uttered other violent words in great passion, merely because his Pig was destroyed. – and without other provocation.
Your Memorialist therefore humbly contends, that a Peace Officer in England would without hesitation, if called a d – Rascal for executing his Orders, have levelled the insulting Offender at his feet.– that the Peace Officer in so doing would not only, be justified in the Eye of the Law but would have it at his option still more severely to punish the Culprit both by fine and imprisonment.
Your Memorialist therefore most humbly trusts that as his duty was literally the same as that of the Peace Officer. he will be considered as entitled to an equal degree of support and protection; - that the Convict, all men of such turbulent and unquiet dispositions as the Prosecutor, will not be encouraged to repeat their insults by a Confirmation of a Sentence, which certainly casts the Soldier out of the Protection of those very Laws he is ordered to execute, and of which, in this Country, he is in a great measure the Guardian.
With the most perfect confidence in the exemplary and known justice of your Excellency, I appeal for a re-version of the Sentence of the Civil Court of Judicature – whatever may be your decision, it will carry with it too much respectability to admit of a doubt of its propriety; and your Memorialist trusts if he shall be found to be ignorant of the Law – that he will at least prove, he knows the first duty of a Soldier, you silently and respectfully to obey.
his

WILLIAM X. FAITHFULL

mark.’
Governor Hunter was sufficiently disturbed by the case to write to Lord Portland about it. In his letter he correctly identified the threat posed to the civil government by the NSW Corps.

Governor Hunter to Lord Portland

‘I cannot allow myself to close the letter on the subject, my Lord, without taking that opportunity of observing that I strongly suspect there are some person or persons in this colony (whose situations are probably respectable) extremely inimical to the necessary influence and authority of the civil power, and to that respect which is due from the public to the civil magistrates.’
During a break in proceedings on the seventh and eighth of December 1795, Edward Abbott approached the court to recover a debt of £37 sterling from George Legg, a Norfolk Islander settler who had returned to Sydney.³⁶ Interestingly Abbott had also bought a 60-acre grant on Norfolk Island from Legg.³⁷
In exploring the mutiny on Norfolk Island and the assault on John Boston it is nearly impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion that the NSW Corps was gang-like in its operations. From the commander down to the privates the pretence that they were both soldiers and peace-keepers was a rationalisation to justify their exploitation of the settlers and convicts. Major Grose had ultimate responsibility for extending the role of the NSW Corps beyond their authorised duties. In April 1794 a conflict took place on the cornfields at Toongabbie between Aboriginal men and watchmen. As a result one Aboriginal man “was shott and one cut down with a sword, the head of one is brought in and the L^t. Gov^r. has preserved it, as a present for G^r. Hunter.³⁸ Rather than extending scientific knowledge, Grose’s actions were probably designed to challenge the Governor and assert the role of the NSW Corps.
On the evidence presented Lieutenant Abbott was volatile and self-serving. According to King he incited his soldiers to attack a settler, he failed to pass on a junior officer’s concerns to the Lieutenant-Governor, and he spoke to his commander as though he represented the other officers when objecting to Captain Nepean’s temporary appointment. His money lending and property deals were outside the role of an officer and supportive of King’s portrayal. Portland’s comments of 10^th June 1795 regarding the detachment’s lack of strong leadership point directly towards Abbott. Quartermaster Laycock, Serjeant Ikin and Private Faithfull³⁹ showed themselves to be only too willing to defend the honour of the NSW Corps. Private Cardell was plain dangerous.
It would be a mistake to cast a cold eye on the NSW Corps without closely examining some of the other personalities on the stage. Lieutenant-Governor King’s actions in going to New Zealand may have been quite opportunistic. The unexpected appearance of Captain Nepean, younger brother of Evan Nepean, Under-Secretary of State, may have prompted King to position himself for a potential governorship by taking the two Maoris back – who incidentally, may have been dropped off at the wrong spot. King’s condemnation of the soldiers of the NSW Corps for “connecting” with the convict women is somewhat hypocritical given that he had two sons on the island by Ann Inett, a convict woman.⁴⁰ While Governor of NSW, King distinguished himself by the size of the land grants he gave to his own family - larger than any of the other governors. Captain Nepean had a reputation for being fiery and Surgeon Harris accused him of profiteering. Lieutenant-Governor Grose may well have breathed a sigh of relief when he authorised Nepean’s return home because of ill health.

Directory: docs
docs -> Application for acem
docs -> Observational Assessment of Teaching Practices Teaching Assessment Initiative Proposal Submitted to The Teachers for a New Era project
docs -> Traditional British values
docs -> From Warfighters to Crimefighters: The Origins of Domestic Police Militarization
docs -> Borzoi Club of America Register of Merit Program I. What is a Register Of Merit
docs -> Protecting the rights of the child in the context of migration
docs -> United Nations E/C. 12/Esp/5
docs -> 9th May 1950 the schuman declaration
docs -> Getting To Outcomes® in Services for Homeless Veterans 10 Steps for Achieving Accountability

Download 327.81 Kb.

Share with your friends: