Outpost of Empire: Why was Australia settled by Britain?

Traditionally, the European settlement of Australia has been attributed to Britain’s need for a “dumping ground” for their criminals. In a time of poverty and overcrowding in London, petty crimes such as theft could lead to jail terms, or in some cases, the death penalty.  However, London jails and prison hulks were unable to cope with increasing prisoner numbers, and, as a consequence, became overcrowded breeding grounds of disease as well as social unrest. This situation was exacerbated when London was no longer able to send excess convicts to their American colonies following the American revolution of 1776. New Holland was selected, after being suggested by Sir Joseph Banks (following his voyage to Eastern Australia in 1770 on the Endeavour), as a new penal colony to house this increasing number of criminals in Britain. This is the traditional view adopted by historians such as A. G. L Shaw and Manning Clark for the settlement of Australia.

However, an alternative argument was presented in historian Geoffrey Blainey’s 1966 book The Tyranny of Distance. Blainey caused controversy when suggesting that Australia’s settlement was not merely as a dumping ground for criminals, but rather, as a site of economic gain and availability of navy resources. Blainey argues that, with access to American timber no longer viable after 1776, the navy needed a new area to harvest and grow high quality pine, such as the pine discovered on Norfolk Island during Cook’s voyage on the Endeavour in 1770. Blainey particularly emphasises the need for flax and timber for use by the British navy ships in order to continue naval exploration and maritime dominance. This theory has come under much scrutiny by historians such as Bolton and Shaw, who argue that Britain could have gained access to these materials for a cheaper price in regions closer to Britain itself. However, Blainey points out that the pine discovered in Norfolk Island appeared to be of superior quality, in high quantities on an island which was uninhabited.

"The Settlement, Norfolk Island" 1846 Print. Note the many Norfolk Island Pine Trees in the background of the image, which historian Geoffrey Blainey believes is of primary importance when regarding reasons for settlement in Australia. (Source: State Library of Tasmania http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?id=100191)

A third theory has been presented by historian Alan Frost, who argues that the settlement of Australia in the 18^th century was for England’s desire for Empire expansion. Frost argues that competition with other nations, such as France, to claim The Great Southern Land, was of importance to Britain. This point is supported by the fact that in January 1788, just eight days after the arrival of the First Fleet, French explorer La Perouse coincidentally arrived in Botany Bay, to find the English Fleet already there. The Empire Theory also encompasses Britain’s need for a base in the Southern Hemisphere, where ships travelling to India could restock and help defend their other colonies. This theory links in closely with a forth theory, which emphasises Australia’s need for a base to trade with Asia, and in particular, China.

There have been many theories put forward regarding the reasons for British settlement of Australia. Perhaps it was a combination of all theories, rather than just one or the other, which led to the colonisation of Australia. Overcrowded jails could be emptied and ridded of undesirable convicts, an outpost the British Empire could be created (before being claimed by competing nations such as France ), and Britain could have a chance to benefit economically and strengthen their navy fleet. Overall, the settlement of Australia seemed to appear as a largely beneficial undertaking by Britain.