: Conflict on the Hawkesbury

1795: Conflict on the Hawkesbury

January 1795: Collins

February 1795: Collins

March 1795

March 1795: Collins

June 1795

June 1795: Lieutenant – Governor Paterson to Dundas

‘15 June 1795: The number of settlers on the banks of the Hawkesbury, with their families, amounts to upwards of four hundred persons, and their grounds extend near thirty miles along the banks of both sides of the river. They have for some time past been annoyed by the natives, who have assembled in large parties for the purpose of plundering them of their corn: and from the impossibility of furnishing each settler with firearms for his defence, several accidents have happened. Within a few weeks five people have been killed and several wounded.¹²⁵ It therefore became absolutely necessary to take some measures which might secure to the settlers the peaceable possession of their estates, and without which, from the alarms these murders have created, I very much fear they would have abandoned the settlement entirely, and given up the most fertile spot which has yet been discovered in the colony. I therefore sent a detachment of two subalterns and sixty privates of the NSW Corps to the river, as well to drive the natives to a distance, as for the protection of the settlers. With this view a subaltern's party is to remain there after the service they are now gone upon is performed.¹²⁶
I have just received a report from the commanding officer of the detachment informing me that the night after his arrival at the river the party had fired upon and pursued a large body of natives who had concealed themselves in the neighbouring woods during the day, and at night came to a settler's farm to plunder it; that he supposes seven or eight natives were killed, and that he was taking every measure he thought likely to deter them from appearing there again.
I have now in my possession one man and four women (natives) who were taken a short time since at the Hawkesbury from amongst a large party who were plundering the settlers. I mean to keep them until they can be made to understand that it is not in their interest to do us injuries, and that we are readier to be friends than enemies; but that we cannot suffer our people to be inhumanely butchered, and their labour rendered useless by their depredations, with impunity.
It gives me concern to have been forced to destroy any of these people, particularly as I have no doubt of their being cruelly treated by some of the first settlers who went out there; however, had I not taken this step, every prospect of advantage which the colony may expect to derive from a settlement formed on the banks of so fine a river as the Hawkesbury would be at an end.’¹²⁷
‘... have the honour to enclose a return of ground sown this year with wheat on public and private account. If the season is favourable, and no accident happens to the corn when ripening, which from the present temper of the natives is rather to be dreaded, we are not likely to feel any want in that article; and there is at this time, with the grain just arrived from Bombay, a sufficient quantity of Indian corn received into store, and remaining to gather, to serve us until the ensuing wheat harvest.’¹²⁸
Paterson’s private letter to his patron, Sir Joseph Banks, written at the same time as the official despatch and carried on the same ship, contained significant differences to his official despatch. I have transcribed the letter in full as it illustrates the thinking and actions of an important figure in Australian history. I have inserted punctuation marks and interpreted two unclear words as being sustance and rendered. The subject of the letter is the provision of supplies for the colony. The letter begins with Paterson’s anxiety for the arrival of Governor Hunter. The letter then deals with the adequacy of grain supplies but switches to the threat Aboriginal people pose to the livestock. The next part details the arrival of livestock from India and the Cape of Good Hope, but expresses his concern at the shortage of salted provisions. The threat posed by Aboriginal people to valuable Hawkesbury farmland and his recourse to sending out a party of the NSW Corps to protect the settlers and to capture some of the natives follows. Next is his suggestion that the government send salted provisions to Bombay so that East India Company ships could bring those and livestock to the colony. He returned to his concern for the arrival of the Governor, citing it as a reason for not being able to add to Sir Joseph’s collection.
The structure of the letter is interesting because of the way in which it posits the Aboriginal threat to the colony’s food supplies around his actions. In his official despatch Paterson makes no reference to the threat posed by natives to the colony’s livestock, rather he refers to the threat to the crops. In fact, the cowherd had flourished after its escape to the Cowpastures. In his letter to Banks he made no mention of his orders to drive the natives away from the farms. Nor did he mention the killing of Aboriginal people or the taking of prisoners. This reader is left with the impression that Paterson did not want to tarnish his reputation with Banks and that he may well have exaggerated the threat posed by Aboriginal people in order to justify his actions.
Paterson’s suggestion regarding the sending of salted stores and livestock on Company ships from Bombay was clever. Paterson was a valued member of Bank’s global network of investigators and collectors. He was well aware that Banks was an advisor to the East India Company. Paterson supplied specimens to the Calcutta Botanical Garden, which had been established with Banks encouragement. His suggestion that Company ships carry both salted stores and livestock from Bombay was calculated to give leverage to Banks and Dundas in their campaign to increase the effectiveness of the Company. Paterson was well aware that enterprising businessmen such as Captain Raven of the Britannia were in breach of the East India Company’s monopoly of trade in the area. Financially, Paterson had nothing to lose by such a suggestion. He was almost unique in not participating in the trading ventures of his fellow officers.

June 1795: Lieutenant – Governor Paterson to Banks

‘Port Jackson 14^th_. June 1795
Dear Sir
In my last letter dated March which went by the Experiment via India I mentioned my situation here & my anxiety for Gov^r Hunter’s arrival. The state of our store at present makes me still more uneasy tho’ we are in no danger of starving from the quantity of grain that is now in the colony, but the description of people we have to deal with it is much to be feared depredations will be committed on our livestock.
A ship which was expected from Bombay with cattle arrived here on the1^st Inst. with one hundred and thirty three cows, Bulls, Draught Oxen & four asses also a quantity of Rice and Dholl,¹²⁹ this with the cargo of horses brought from the Cape of Good Hope by the Britannia and the sheep and goats we now have with a little more of sustance from Government this Colony in three years would certainly be independent of animal food, provided our stores for that time could be supplied with salt provisions.
I enclose you a Return of Ground in Cultivation and the livestock we now have but am sorry to say there is some trouble in protecting that promising settlement on the banks of the Hawkesbury. The natives have killed several of the settlers and committed great depredations on their crops. I have been under the necessity of sending a detachment of two officers and sixty privates to protect them for the present and if possible to take some of natives prisoners, what affect this will have I cannot as yet judge. If they continue as they have begun it is much to be fear’d that the settlement will be deserted by the Europeans and consequently destroy the colony as they have now upwards of 500 acres of wheat in the ground.
May I beg leave to offer you my ideas with respect to supplying the Colony with salted Provisions. Should you think the idea a good one you will do me honour in communicating it to His Majesty’s Secretary of State.
It appears from the Cargo of Cattle now received by the Endeavour that Bombay is the best place and as grain is not wanted here – if Government could send the salted meat by the Company’s ships to that Port, we would then be certain of both supplies until the Colony was render’d independent. I have to apologise for offering my opinion on this subject, but as it proceeds merely from a desire of serving the Colony I hope that will plead an excuse.
Until the arrival of the Governor I shall not be able to add much to your collection.
My compliments to all friends

I am

Dear Sir

Your Most Obed^t &

Very faithfull Serv^t.

W.Paterson’¹³⁰
David Collins wrote two accounts of the punitive expedition. As Deputy-Judge-Advocate of the colony he would have been privy to Abbott’s report on his actions on the Hawkesbury. It is quite likely that he had dinner with the governor and the officer who brought the report and captives in. On the 11^th of June he wrote to his friend, assistant surgeon Edward Laing, who had returned to England with Grose

June 1795: Collins to Laing

‘We have little or no news. The natives at the Hawkesbury are murdering the settlers. Abbott and MacKellar with Co soldiers are in turn murdering the natives (but it cannot be avoided) …’¹³¹
On his return to England he published An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales as a means of reviving his career prospects. While more forthright than Paterson, he did not call Abbott a murderer in the public record as he did in his private letter.

June 1795: Collins

‘At that settlement an open war seemed about this time to have commenced between the natives and the settlers; and word was received over-land, that two people were killed by them; one a settler of the name of Wilson,¹³² and the other a freeman, one William Thorp, who had been left behind from the Britannia, and had hired himself to this Wilson as a labourer. The natives appeared in large bodies, men, women, and children, provided with blankets and nets to carry off the corn, of which they appeared as fond as the natives who lived among us, and seemed determined to take it whenever and wherever they could meet with opportunities. In their attacks they conducted themselves with much art; but where that failed they had recourse to force, and on the least appearance of resistance made use of their spears or clubs. To check at once, if possible, these dangerous depredators, Captain Paterson directed a party of the corps to be sent from Parramatta, with instructions to destroy as many as they could meet with of the wood tribe (Be`-dia-gal); and, in the hope of striking terror, to erect gibbets in different places, whereon the bodies of all they might kill were to be hung. It was reported, that several of these people were killed in consequence of this order; but none of their bodies being found, (perhaps if any were killed they were carried off by their companions,) the number could not be ascertained. Some prisoners however were taken, and sent to Sydney; one man, (apparently a cripple) five women, and some children. One of the women, with a child at her breast, had been shot through the shoulder, and the same shot had wounded the babe. They were immediately placed in a hut near our hospital, and every care taken of them that humanity suggested. The man was said, instead of being a cripple, to have been very active about the farms, and instrumental in some of the murders which had been committed. In a short time he found means to escape, and by swimming reached the north shore in safety; whence, no doubt, he got back to his friends. Captain Paterson hoped, by detaining the prisoners and treating them well, that some good effect might result; but finding, after some time, that coercion, not attention, was more likely to answer his ends, he sent the women back. While they were with us, the wounded child died, and one of the women was delivered of a boy, which died immediately. On our withdrawing the party, the natives attacked a farm nearly opposite Richmond Hill, belonging to one William Rowe,¹³³ and put him and a very fine child to death. The wife, after receiving several wounds, crawled down the bank, and concealed herself among some reeds half immersed in the river, where she remained a considerable time without assistance: being at length found, this poor creature, after having seen her husband and her child slaughtered before her eyes, was brought into the hospital at Parramatta, where she recovered, though slowly, of her wounds. In consequence of this horrid circumstance, another party of corps was sent out; and while they were there the natives kept at a distance. This duty now became permanent; and the soldiers were distributed among the settlers for their protection; a protection, however, that many of them did not merit.’¹³⁴
The third account comes from the Reverend Thomas Fyshe Palmer who had been a Unitarian minister in Dundee, Scotland before being sent to NSW in 1794 for criticising the corruption of parliamentary elections. His letter invariably raises questions about the source and reliability of his information. Palmer was one of the five Scottish Martyrs, sent to NSW for sedition. These political prisoners were given a house on the east side of Sydney Cove, near Collins’s house, and were relatively free provided they made no political comment. Palmer quickly found a place in the colony brewing beer. Collins was often in the company of the Scottish martyrs, men he viewed as social equals, despite their not having orthodox political opinions.
We also know about the links between David Collins and the Scottish martyrs through Daniel Paine, the colony’s ship builder.¹³⁵. Paine was an outspoken radical and a friend of the Scottish martyrs. Paine and Collins were well acquainted with each other through a court case involving Paine’s servant. It would appear that Collins’ drinking partner, Thomas Muir, shared quarters with the Rev. Fyshe Palmer.¹³⁶

Daniel Paine on David Collins

‘On this day the governor sent for me with whom I had a long conversation on the subject of contempt of court and my late conduct together with a new charge (brought about by my worthy friend the Judge-Advocate¹³⁷) of being inimical to His Majesties Government on account of my occasionally visiting as a neighbour Mess^rs. Margarot or Palmer (Although the Judge-Advocate himself had been continually in the habit of visiting and being visited by Mr. Muir and their friendship cemented by the circling glass even to a state of inebriation)’¹³⁸
It was the physical and social proximity of Palmer to David Collins that gives Palmer’s letter its authenticity. That Collins and Palmer both wrote about the same matter within a few days of each other leaves little doubt of their communication. Whether Collins discussed the punitive expedition directly with Palmer, or Muir related the events to Palmer; there can be little doubt that sometime in the middle of June 1795, David Collins, with his tongue loosened by liquor was the source of Palmer’s letter.

June 1795: Rev. Fyshe Palmer to Doctor John Disney.

‘A LETTER FROM THE REVEREND FYSHE PALMER TO DOCTOR JOHN DISNEY, N.S.WALES, JUNE 13, 1795. MY DEAR SIR,

… The situation the colony is in at present is dreadful. It is put on half allowance, and even at this rate there is not enough in the stores to last three weeks. They have begun to kill the livestock. The cows are condemned, but all the stock in the colony will not last a month. The only respite is about three months provisions of Indian corn, a food inadequate to labour. …
Mr. Muir, myself Mr. and Mrs. Boston and Ellis live together, and are all well. It gave me great pleasure on landing to see the harmony between the natives and whites. This was owing to the indefatigable pains of Governor Phillips, to cultivate a good understanding with them. When himself was speared he would suffer no vengeance to be taken, and on no account an injury to be done them by a white man. The natives of the Hawkesbury (the richest land possibly in the world, producing 30 and 40 bushels of wheat per acre) ¹³⁹ lived on the wild yams on the banks. Cultivation has rooted out these, and poverty compelled them to steal Indian corn to support nature. The unfeeling settlers resented this by unparalleled severities. The blacks in return speared two or three whites, but tired out, they came unarmed, and sued for peace. This, government thought proper to deny them, and last week sent sixty soldiers to kill and destroy all they could meet with, and drive them utterly from the Hawkesbury. They seized a native boy who had lived with a settler, and made him discover where his parents and relations concealed themselves. They came upon them unarmed, and unexpected, killed five and wounded many more. The dead they hang on gibbets, in terrorem. The war may be universal on the part of the blacks, whose improvement and civilization will be a long time deferred. The people killed were unfortunately the most friendly of the blacks, and one of them more than once saved the life of a white man. Governor Hunter, whose arrival is so anxiously expected, will come out with just and liberal ideas, I trust, of policy, and correct the many abuses and oppressions we groan under, as well as those of the poor natives. It seems a strange time to drive these poor wretches into famine, the almost certain consequences of driving them from their situation, when we are so near It ourselves. …
I am, dear Sir, Your much obliged and affectionate T.F. PALMER.’¹⁴⁰
Despite the gaps and contradictions it is possible to construct a picture of the events of June. Drought probably forced Aboriginal people onto the farms in search of food. It is also likely that the NSW Corps expanded settlement at this time upon Freemans Reach in an attempt to increase food production. At the same time Collins describes the situation around May/June as being one of open war with the spearing of Wilson and Thorp. Paterson refers to the killing of five unnamed settlers and was fearful of the settlers abandoning their farms. Palmer describes the killing of several whites. Whether or not Palmer was correct that after the spearing of two or three whites, Aboriginal people being “tired out they came unarmed and sued for peace”, in early June, Paterson ordered two subalterns and sixty soldiers to the Hawkesbury to “drive the natives to a distance” and to protect the settlers. Collins provides no detail as to the killings, but Paterson and Palmer differ significantly in their account of how contact was made with Aboriginal people. In his despatch Paterson reported that the presence of Aboriginal people was known whereas Palmer wrote that an Aboriginal boy on the farms was tortured into disclosing the whereabouts of his family.
The captured Aboriginal people included a man, four or five women, one of whom was in the last stages of pregnancy, another nursing a baby and a number of children. Collins was of the opinion that the man who had been captured was well known about the farms and had been party to the deaths of several settlers. Palmer was of the opinion that the people killed were “the most friendly of the blacks, and one of them more than once saved the life of a white man”.¹⁴¹ Given that Palmer wrote about the prisoners on the 11^th one can only conclude that Paterson’s letter to Sir Joseph Banks on 14^th June 1795 anticipating the capture of Aboriginal people was a fabrication.
Where the encounter took place is not clear. Despite some secondary references to a Battle of Richmond Hill I can find no evidence that Abbott fought a battle in that area. Tactically, such an operation so soon after their arrival involving a march across Rickaby’s Creek and the Chain of Ponds was improbable. It was equally unlikely that Aboriginal people would abandon the advantages of a difficult Hawkesbury River crossing and the high ground of Richmond Hill to meet the soldiers on an open field. That the initial encounter took place so soon after the troop’s arrival suggests close proximity to the main settlement. The capture of women and children would have been far more likely in an attack on a camp than out in the field. I do not find Paterson’s despatch to be convincing regarding a band of warriors lurking all day in the bush in order to attack a farm that night. It is far more likely that Lieutenant Abbott took his orders literally and began to clear the Aboriginal camps close to the farms. It is possible that settlers played some part in the operation. Both Collins and Palmer refer to gibbets being erected to hang dead bodies upon. Paterson made no mention of gibbets.
On the withdrawal of the troops, the farm of William Rowe across the river from Richmond Hill was attacked. Rowe and his infant child were killed and his wounded wife escaped only by hiding in the river.¹⁴² It is unknown whether Rowe was involved in Abbott’s punitive expedition. It is my contention that death of Rowe and his child were in revenge for the actions of the soldiers, and that like Burdett they were targeted because of their isolation and as part of a strategy to contain the growth of the settlement. As a result Paterson sent the troops back; “a protection, however, that many of them did not merit” according to Collins.
There is one other piece of evidence that is not referred to in the correspondence. In 1795 a total of 2375 acres was granted to 87 individuals, mainly serving officers and men, effectively doubling the grants of 1794. The majority of these grants were recorded in the three months of July to September 1795. In those three months, sixty-three officers and men received land grants on the Hawkesbury. It is logical to assume that the two subalterns and sixty privates of the punitive expedition were the recipients of these grants. On the 22^nd of August 1795 Lieutenant Abbott and 12 soldiers were granted 400 acres on Freemans Reach, not far from Doyle, Shadrack, and Forrester by Paterson. As well, it should be noted that the recording of the land grants was notoriously slow. The grants of the first twenty-two settlers were not recorded till November 1794. Thomas Webb had been dead for twelve months before his grant was recorded in September 1796. It is not unreasonable to assume that the two officers and sixty soldiers went to the Hawkesbury as landowners and had a vested interest in clearing the land of Aboriginal people. Consideration should also be given to the possibility that the land grants were made to stiffen the resolve of soldiers whose quality was questionable. Paterson almost certainly did not draw attention to this act because it exceeded Dundas’s instructions regarding land grants to serving military and naval personnel, particularly privates. What Paterson did was without precedent in the British Empire.¹⁴³

August 1795

Charles Grimes and John Wilson returned from s in March. In late August four convicts who had run away in 1790 were brought back from Port Stephens where they had been accepted into Aboriginal society. Both these returns gave David Collins pause for reflection. His musings provide the modern reader with an opportunity to examine the relationships and interaction of Aborigine and European.
The big question is why didn’t Aboriginal people drive the Europeans into the sea? To address this question one must explore Aboriginal culture and history. While Aboriginal society was tribal in nature, The Dreaming provided and still provides a universal framework to talk about it in general terms. The Dreaming is the spiritual framework of Aboriginal existence. It is a non-linear continuum of past, present and future, within which the spiritual and physical worlds live side by side. It is a highly conservative and complex network of rights, relationships and responsibilities with a focus on cycles of renewal. There is no Fall from Grace in The Dreaming; no expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 was probably the first major disruption for coastal Aboriginal people since the last ice age ended about ten thousand years ago with a rise in sea-level of 100 metres. The reactions of the Port Stephens Aboriginal people to the arrival of four runway convicts were probably similar to the reaction of Aboriginal people around Sydney to the arrival of the First Fleet, i.e., the new arrivals were framed within the context of The Dreaming. The runaway convicts were accepted by the Port Stephens Aboriginal people as reincarnations of ancestors and when the convicts told them that they were human and that there were many others like them; the convicts were told that the large numbers of people in other places were simply the spirits of dead Aboriginal people that had gone to those places.¹⁴⁴ Thus, the new arrivals were viewed as being Aboriginal people that had probably gone astray in the cycle of reincarnation. This interpretation explains why Aboriginal women in their canoes ignored the ships, why the men attempted to drive away the ships of the First Fleet when they sailed into the harbour and why they then grudgingly accepted them when a gap-toothed man asked for water. This argument is also supported by the use of the word “Bru-ang” or “Boo-rō-wong” which literally means island, to describe the ships of the First Fleet.¹⁴⁵ I believe it would be a mistake to think that the Aboriginal people saw the arrival of the First Fleet as an apocalyptic harbinger of doom, rather it was a visitation of unwelcome relatives who somehow or other had to be fitted in. This concept finds a modern counterpoint in the assigning of Aboriginal names to anthropologists working in remote communities. It is supported by the invitation of settlers to witness ceremonies. Tench, Collins, Walker and Threlkeld have left accounts of ceremonies and rituals they were invited to watch. These invitations were intended to teach the Law to the newcomers. The gathering of Aboriginal families around the farms of settlers along the banks of the Hawkesbury River has been traditionally interpreted as a sign of Aboriginal dependence on settlers. However, it may also be true that some Aboriginal families “adopted” some settler families as part of a process of accommodation.
The first killings of white people were probably a response to the breaking of traditional law, irrespective of whether the transgressor was a white invader or a confused reincarnation. There is a telling exchange between Patyegarang and Dawes recorded in late 1791 that reveals much of Aboriginal anger and fear.
‘I then told her that a whiteman had been wounded some days ago in coming from Kadi to Wāránŋ and asked her why the blackmen¹⁴⁶ did it.

Ans^r. Gūlara (Because they are) angry.

D. Minyin gūlara eǒra Why are the b. m. angry?

P. Inyám ŋal-wi w. m. Because the white men are settled here.

P. Tyérun kamangál The kamarigals are afraid.

D. Minyin tyérun k_gál? Why are the k_ afraid?

P. Gunin Because of the guns.’¹⁴⁷
William Dawes recorded “Dje-ra-bar” or “Je-rab-ber”¹⁴⁸ as being the Aboriginal name given to the musket. That “Dje-ra-bar” was also what Aboriginal people frequently called the Europeans reinforces the idea that Aboriginal people treated the Beriwāl with caution. Watkin Tench made a similar observation about the Hawkesbury languages. “a gun, for instance, they call Gooroobeera, that is –a stick of fire. – Sometimes also, by a licence of language, they call those who carry guns by the same name.”¹⁴⁹ There are other references that reinforce the Aboriginal fear of guns. On 7th March 1791, Elizabeth Macarthur wrote to her friend, Bridget Kingdon, “they are still under such terror of our fire Arms, that a single armed Man would drive an hundred Natives with their spears and we take care not to venture Walking to any distance unarmed”.¹⁵⁰ There are two later references that reinforce the Aboriginal fear of guns. In 1817 Lancelot Threlkeld wrote of a man in Hobart who “boasted of shooting Blacks like birds off the branches of trees on which they had climbed for refuge”¹⁵¹ and similarly James Ryan recounted the shooting of a Aboriginal woman, “who climbed up a short bushy tree with her child in her net on her back”. This incident took place on the Hawkesbury, probably in 1816.¹⁵² It is my contention that Aboriginal fear of firearms was generated not just by the noise of a discharging firearms and the impact of large bore bullets on human flesh, but also by the magical qualities of smoke. Smoking is an important Aboriginal cleansing ceremony. It is arguable that Aboriginal people may have perceived firearms as being a magical weapon capable of not just killing the person but also preventing their reincarnation. These incidents illustrate not only the Aboriginal fear of firearms, but the ways in which that fear could lead to horrendous casualties amongst Aboriginal people. The impact of disease probably completely shattered the ability of Aboriginal society to deliver a co-ordinated resistance to the invaders.
However, there was no doubt that linguistically-gifted and curious people such as Wurrgan/Wur-gan and John Wilson found it possible to wander between two worlds.¹⁵³ Collins’ account of Wilson’s and Knight’s attempt to take two young girls may indicate that the group of which he was a member was a loose grouping of young men without any women of their own – possibly further evidence of the fragmentation of Aboriginal society.
‘Wilson (Bun-bo-e), returned to the Hawkesbury, immediately after his return from Port Stephens with the deputy-surveyor, went off to the natives at the river. Another vagabond, who like himself had been a convict, one Knight, thinking there must be some sweets in the life which Wilson led, determined to share them with him, and went off to the woods. About the middle of this month they both came into the town, accompanied by some of their companions. On the day following it appeared that their visit was for the purpose of forcing a wife from among the women of this district; for in the midst of a considerable uproar, which was heard near the bridge, Wilson and Knight were discovered, each dragging a girl by the arm (whose age could not have been beyond nine or ten years) assisted by their new associates. The two white men being soon secured, and the children taken care of, the mob dispersed. Wilson and Knight were taken to the cells and punished, and it was intended to employ them both in hard labour; but they found means to escape, and soon mixed again with companions whom they preferred to our overseers.’¹⁵⁴
In late August The Providence reached Sydney carrying four convicts who had been picked up in Port Stephens where the ship had been driven by storms. The men had escaped in 1790. “They spoke in high terms of the pacific disposition and gentle manners of the natives. They were at some distance inland when Mr. Grimes was in Port Stephens; but heard soon after of the schooner’s visit, and well knew, and often afterwards saw, the man who had been fired at, but not killed at that time as was supposed by Wilson. Each of them had had names given him, and given with several ceremonies. Wives also were allotted them, and one or two had children. They were never required to go out on any occasion of hostility, and were in general supplied by the natives with fish or other food, being considered by them (for so their situation only could be so construed) as unfortunate strangers thrown upon their shore from the mouth of the yawning deep, and entitled to their protection. They told us a ridiculous story, that the natives appeared to worship them, often assuring them, when they began to understand each other, that they were undoubtedly the ancestors of some of them who had fallen in battle, and had returned from the sea to visit them again; and one native appeared to firmly believe that his father was come back in the person of either Lee or Connoway, and took him to the spot where his body had been burnt. On being told that immense numbers of people existed far beyond their little knowledge, they instantly pronounced them to be the spirits of their countrymen, which after death, had migrated into other regions.
It appeared from these four men, that the language to the northward differed wholly from any that we knew. Among the natives who lived with us, there were none who understood all that they said, and of those who occasionally came in, one only could converse with them. He was a very fine lad, of the name of Wur-gan. His mother had been born and bred beyond the mountains, but one luckless day, paying a visit to some of her tribe to the banks of De-rab-bun (for so the Hawkesbury was named) she was forcibly prevented returning, and being obliged to submit to the embraces of an amorous and powerful Be-dia-gal, the fruit of her visit was this boy. Speaking herself more dialects than one, she taught her son all she knew, and he, being of quick parts, and a roving disposition, caught all the different dialects from Botany Bay to Port Stephens.’¹⁵⁵
In July 1796 Collins became aware that a white woman may have been living with the Port Stephens Aboriginal people. This story came to him from the crew of a fishing boat who had been cast ashore there and guided back to Broken Bay. However, Collins displayed no enthusiasm to mount a rescue mission. The truth may have been too unpalatable, “there was indeed a woman, one Ann Smith who ran away a few Days after our sitting down in this place, and whose fate was not exactly ascertaineds (sic); if she could have survived the hardships and wretchedness of such a life a must have been hers during so many years residence among the natives of New Holland, how much information must it have been in her power to afford! But humanity shuddered at the idea of purchasing it at so dear a price.”¹⁵⁶

September 1795: Elizabeth Macarthur

Elizabeth Macarthur wrote two letters to England in August 1794 and September 1795. The following extract comes from the letter of September 1795. In the letter she describes a journey on horseback to the Hawkesbury in which she probably accompanied her husband John Macarthur on an official visit. The extract is important as it gives a strong visual overview of the area and the fear the settlers had of Aboriginal people. It is unclear when the visit took place so her reference to Aboriginal people killing “many white people on the banks of the river” is clouded by vagueness and her reference to the lack of shipping is wrong, as the colonial schooner started taking the settlers’ grain to Sydney in May 1795, several months before she wrote the letter.
‘There is a very good carriage-road now made from hence¹⁵⁷ to Sydney, which by land is distant about fourteen miles; and another from this to the river Hawkesbury, which is about twenty miles from here in a direct line across the country. Parramatta is a central position between both. I have once visited the Hawkesbury, and made the journey on horseback. The road is through an uninterrupted wood, with the exception of the village of Toongabie, a farm of Government, and one or two others, which we distinguish by the name of Greenlands,¹⁵⁸ on account of the fine grass and there being few trees compared with the other parts of the country, which is occasionally brushy and more or less covered with underwood. The greater part of the country is like an English park, and the trees give to it the appearance of a wilderness, or shrubbery commonly attached to the habitations of people of fortune, filled with a variety of native plants, placed in a wild, irregular manner. I was at the Hawkesbury three days. It is a noble fresh-water river, taking its rise in a precipitous ridge of mountains that it has hitherto been impossible to pass. Many attempts have been made, although in vain. I spent an entire day on this river going in a boat to a beautiful spot - named by the late Governor, Richmond Hill - high and overlooking a great extent of country. On one side are those stupendous barriers to which I have alluded, rising as it were immediately above your head; below, the river itself, still and unruffled. Out of sight is heard a waterfall, whose distant murmurs add awfulness to the scene. I could have spent more time here, but we were not without apprehensions of being; interrupted by the natives, as about that time they were very troublesome, and had killed many white people on the banks of the river. The soil in the valley of this river is most productive, and greatly superior to any that has been tilled in this country, which has induced numbers to settle there; but having no vessels, there is at present much difficulty in transporting the produce to Sydney.’¹⁵⁹

December 1795

A group of soldiers took up land on the left bank of the river where the Sackville ferry is now located. The name Addy’s Creek was the only relic of their presence for a number of years as they were driven out in 1796.¹⁶⁰ It may be that they were deliberately located there as a strategic presence on the lower river. The Aboriginal reaction was immediate and signalled that the June offensive had not stifled Aboriginal resistance. The killing and wounding of Aboriginal men, women and children indicates that the target was not an armed band of warriors but a family unit. Given Aboriginal fear of muskets, it is highly likely that they would have dispersed if an armed party had come up with them. It is more likely that the target was a closely packed camp taken by surprise.

December 1795: Collins

‘A report from the river was current about this time, that the natives had assembled in a large body, and attacked a few settlers who had chosen farms low down the river, and without the reach of protection from the other settlers, stripping them of every article they could find in their huts. An armed party was directly sent out, who, coming up with them, killed four men and one woman, badly wounded a child, and took four men prisoners. It might have been supposed that these punishments, following the enormities so immediately, would have taught the natives to keep at a greater distance; but nothing seemed to deter them from prosecuting the revenge they had vowed against the settlers for the injuries they had received at their hands.’¹⁶¹

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: