Today's Stories from our Past
A podcast about Australian family stories and social history. Everyone has a story that we want to tell.
To contact us, email us at:
todaysstories101@gmail.com
or search for "Today's Stories from our Past" on Facebook or YouTube.
Today's Stories from our Past
E07 –Bound for South Australia – A Missed Opportunity
Could more accurate early reports have changed the fate of South Australia?
Join us as we unravel the chaotic beginnings of this unique colony, influenced by misconceptions and missteps, starting with the ill-fated decision to settle on Kangaroo Island. We'll explore the murky waters of early exploration and question how the colony's development might have differed had settlers gone directly to Adelaide, armed with precise information from figures like Captain Barker, Captain Jones, and Matthew Flinders. Journey with us through adventurous tales of explorers like John Jones, Captain Collett Barker, and Charles Sturt, whose findings and interactions shaped the region's colonial history.
From the mysterious disappearance of settlers like Slater and Osborne to the strategic crafting of public perception, we discuss how reports, particularly those from Sturt and Sutherland, influenced immigration narratives. We'll also touch on the efforts to maintain the image of South Australia, minimizing conflicts with First Nations people. As we wrap up this episode, we set the stage for Proclamation Day and the personal stories of early colonists. This episode promises untold stories and insights from the rich tapestry of South Australia's past, paving the way for more revelations in our upcoming installment.
Contact us at todaysstories101@gmail.com.
We regret to announce another most barbarous murder by the natives of New Holland in the death of Captain Barker of the 39th Regiment, late Commandant at King George's Sound. The circumstances attending this melancholy death are thus detailed in a government order by Governor Darling G'day I'm Peter and g'day I'm Greg.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Today's Stories from Our Past, a podcast about a history of Australia from about 1800 onwards. The story is told through the experiences of those who lived it.
Speaker 3:We'll tell you stories about Australia that you probably haven't heard before, so what are we going to talk about in this episode?
Speaker 2:Well, in previous episodes about the establishment of the colony of South Australia, I've been struck by how chaotic it was. Apart from the odd choices of some people for their roles, the whole business of going to KI first and setting up camp there while waiting for Colonel Light to decide on the best site for the main town of the colony meant that there was a delay between arriving and getting onto the land and planting crops, etc. If they'd gone to Adelaide directly, or at least to the site of Adelaide, they would have started building the colony immediately. They would have built proper housing more quickly and the food stores that they brought with them would have been replenished more quickly, as they would have started farming on the Adelaide plains immediately. So my question is could it have been done any better?
Speaker 3:Yeah, but wasn't the plan to go to KI based on the Sutherland report? And the Sutherland report was the only thing known about South Australia at that time?
Speaker 2:Yes, the early immigrants did find that KI was covered with thick scrub and was not the open grassy plain as described in that report.
Speaker 3:Well, that was disappointing, but wasn't that the only information they had at the time?
Speaker 2:Yes, and that limited information meant that Slater and Osborne died as a consequence of that description, and my great-great-grandfather, charles Nanties, almost joined them. They say that the Sutherland Report was the only information available at the time, but I've come across a few breadcrumbs that suggest otherwise. For example, on 24 September 1836, while exploring along the coastline of Goulston, vincent, colonel Light wrote in his diary September 24th.
Speaker 5:Got underway at 9am and ran up the gulf in search of the harbour described by Captain Jones. At half past 4pm came to an anchor opposite, an inlet, apparently answering this description in the chart marked 4th Anchorage.
Speaker 2:Then, a couple of days later, light writes in his journal September 27th.
Speaker 5:I have examined this inlet but find it very different to Jones's description, except in one instance, that of having three and a half fathoms inside. The island was large and covered with mangroves near the water's edge and no fresh water. I therefore determined on going higher up the gulf in hopes of finding this much-desired harbour, and got under way this morning with the flood at 11.30am. At 3pm came to an anchor in a quarter-less three fathoms marked 5th Anchorage latitude, 34 degrees 34 minutes, about four miles from the shore and from the main top distinctly saw the termination of the gulf and the land on both sides sandy, low ground and mangroves seemed to extend the whole way.
Speaker 2:So what harbour is Light talking about here, and who is this Captain Jones? Also in episode one we said that Guja and co were inspired by the discoveries of Sturt. I've always understood that Sturt only followed the Murray River down to Lake Alexandrina and that he didn't go anywhere west of that, meaning that he didn't see the Adelaide Plains. But just to be sure, I got a hold of Sturt's report and had a read. In his report he includes a description of a subsequent exploration that was undertaken in 1831 by a Captain Barker. So I became a bit intrigued as to what Captain Jones and Captain Barker knew. Would their information have changed how the colony developed?
Speaker 3:Well, that's interesting. Where did we start?
Speaker 2:I think that we should look more deeply into what was actually known about South Australia before the first immigrants arrived. Firstly, let's go back and look at what Matthew Flinders knew.
Speaker 3:Yeah, we mentioned in episode one that Flinders was the first recorded European to cite KI, but didn't he just sail around the isle and then up and down the gulfs?
Speaker 2:Well, actually he did a bit more than that. He discovered KI on Sunday 21st of March 1802.
Speaker 4:Here's an extract out of his diary Next morning, however, on going toward the shore, a number of dark brown kangaroos were seen feeding upon a grass plot by the side of the wood, and our landing gave them no disturbance. I had with me a double-barrelled gun fitted with a bayonet, and the gentlemen my companions had muskets. It would be difficult to guess how many kangaroos were seen, but I killed ten, and the rest of the party made up the number to thirty-one, which were taken on board in the course of the day. The least of them weighed sixty-nine pounds and the largest one hundred twenty-five pounds.
Speaker 4:These kangaroos had much resemblance to the large species found in the forest lands of New South Wales, except that their colour was darker and they were not wholly destitute of fat. After this butchery for the poor animals suffered themselves to be shot in the eyes with small shot and in some cases, to be knocked on the head with sticks. I scrambled with difficulty through the wood and over fallen trees to reach higher land with the surveying instruments, but the thickness and height of the wood prevented anything else from being distinguished. There was little doubt, however, that this extensive piece of land was separated from the continent for the extraordinary tameness of the kangaroos and the presence of seals upon the shore concurred with the absence of all traces of men to show that it was not inhabited.
Speaker 2:So Flinders correctly concluded that no people lived on the island. He also commented about the difficulty of scrambling through the scrub. Importantly, he didn't make any comment about open grassy plains. If he saw fine agricultural land, I think he would have made a point of noting that.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's interesting. Okay, so what about this? Captain Jones, fellow.
Speaker 2:Well, captain John Jones was a whaling captain who also did some exploring along the South Australian coastline. There she goes as well. As whaling, jones also took on the role of explorer in search of suitable settlement locations around the South Australian coast. He did this on behalf of commercial entrepreneurs in Tasmania. This happened in the early 1830s, so this was before the official british settlement we've talked about.
Speaker 2:In 1836 jones, as captain of the schooner for henry from van diemen's land, was credited with finding in 1834 a fine harbour on the south austral Australian mainland with an island in the entrance and an anchorage inside. Although he didn't know it at the time, he'd actually found the future Port Adelaide. Then Launceston merchant Henry Reid, who owned the Henry, had wider interests beyond whaling. In 1833, jones, on the Henry, visited KI and then proceeded up St Vincent's Gulf and put exploration parties ashore at various points and returned to Launceston making a report on the suitability of the country for settlements. Jones recommended Cape Jarvis and the eastern shores of Gulf St Vincent as the most suitable sites for settlement. The eastern shore of Gulf St Vincent is where Holdfast Bay is, that's modern day Glenelg. You should remember that the existence of Gulf St Vincent was well known, as Flinders had actually mapped it in 1802.
Speaker 3:As Flinders had actually mapped it in 1802. So Captain Jones knew about Port Adelaide and the Adelaide Plains before 1836 and recommended it for settlement.
Speaker 2:Yeah, at least 23 Tasmanian-based whaling vessels had been actively engaged in whaling in South Australian waters from 1814 to 1849. So the idea of a colony there was suggested before 1836, at least by the Tasmanians. Jones was a Sydney-born son of a Welsh convict transported for stealing linen In Tasmania. He learned whaling and sealing skills. He either owned or by 1830 had shares in three whaling ships. From 1831 to 1834 in the, henry Jones took whaling parties and stores to KI and brought back oil. In 1833, jones supplied whaling gear and provisions for merchant John Griffith's whaling station at Hog Bay on KI and took passengers John Sinclair, john Taylor and Taylor's wife and child to visit the island. Taylor's wife was probably the first European woman to visit South Australia.
Speaker 2:During his voyages to South Australia Jones engaged in sealing expeditions while looking for good land, soil and water in Spencer's Gulf, gulf, st Vincent and around Cape Jarvis. Jones was among those who had first contact with the First Nations people there. In 1833, jones met a First Nations group consisting of about 10 families at Cape Jarvis. It was later reported that five of the men worked for him occasionally and two were with him constantly for near five months. They were very useful and willing to work. For a trifling rejuvenation To the two who remained with him long, he gave them pistols, powder and shot To others slop clothing. He saw their women and children only at a distance and saw no other natives on the rest of the coast along Gulf St Vincent, but their fires were very numerous. Jones explored Gulf St Vincent in 1834 when he found the entrance to the future Port Adelaide. He also was searching for fresh water, as KI was in a drought at the time. The island's lack of water would stymie its chances of being the site for the first official British colony in 1836.
Speaker 3:Now that's interesting. This Captain Jones fellow had found what would become the future of Port Adelaide and somehow Colonel Light knew about his discoveries. Perhaps the planners back in England decided to go to KI because of the open grassy plains for agriculture. Mentioned in the Sutherland report that they were unaware of Jones's knowledge. Mentioned in the Sutherland report that they were unaware of Jones's knowledge. I mean, after all, tasmania was at the end of the earth from England and perhaps knowledge of Jones's findings hadn't got back to England.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's probably so, but in episode one we noted that news of Captain Sturt's exploration in southern Australia created the initial interest in South Australia as a colony. So even if they didn't know about Jones's findings in England, I thought I would find out exactly what Sturt knew. Sturt published details of his exploration in a report entitled Two Expeditions into the Interior of southern Australia during the years 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, with observations on the soil, climate and general resources of the colony of New South Wales. This report was published in England in 1834, that's before the colony was set up. Published in England in 1834. That's before the colony was set up. What's really interesting about this report is that Sturt also includes information from another explorer, one, captain Collett Barker.
Speaker 3:OK, I haven't heard of him. What did he do?
Speaker 2:Captain Barker explored the Adelaide Plains in April 1831. What?
Speaker 3:That's five years before the Collins went to KI. Why wasn't this information used? Where did he go and what did he discover?
Speaker 2:Well, I think this is just an amazing story. Firstly, here's some information about Captain Barker Collett. Barker was a British military officer and explorer. He had explored areas of Western Australia and the Coburg Peninsula in the Northern Territory. In 1831, on the recommendation of Charles Sturt, who had visited the shoaled mouth of the Murray River in the previous year, barker was sent to explore the east coast of Goulston Vincent in South Australia to see if another channel from the Murray entered the sea there. The east coast of Goulston Vincent is where Adelaide is today.
Speaker 2:On 13 April 1831, barker and his party arrived at Cape Jarvis on the Isabella. He examined the coast and found that there was no channel connecting across the Murray River, but Barker kept looking around. Exploring further north, barker found the Onkaparinga River. On 15 April he then explored the ranges inland north of the present site of Adelaide and climbed Mount Lofty where he sighted the Port River Inlet, barker Inlet and the future Port Adelaide. This was arguably his most important sighting. He then moored the Isabel near the present day Yakintalilla Bay and went overland to explore the area around Lake Alagdrandrina and Encounter Bay.
Speaker 2:On 29 April 1831, barker and his party reached the Murray Mouth by himself. Barker swam across the narrow channel. The next morning he went over a sand hill and was never seen again. A few days later, the rest of his party learned that the local First Nations people had killed Barker. It's speculated that they may have mistaken him for a whaler or a sealer, many of whom had previously abducted First Nations women from there. The First Nations men responsible for Barker's murder were identified, but no retaliation or punitive action against those believed responsible was undertaken.
Speaker 3:Okay, so Barker and his party saw the land around where Adelaide would eventually be built, but he was killed soon after. Does that mean his knowledge never reached England?
Speaker 2:No Members of Barker's expedition party survived, notably a Mr Kent. Kent knew all about the Adelaide area. Subsequently, in 1834, Sturt produced his report. Sturt produced his report. Sturt's report includes details of Barker's 1831 expedition. I've seen an advertisement for this report in a British newspaper dated 17 August 1833. Again, this is before the colony was established.
Speaker 3:So Sturt's report was published before the modified version of Captain Sutherland's report was published in 1834. Is there any relevant information in Sturt's report? Absolutely.
Speaker 2:Sturt's report is quite long but here are a few selected gems. Barker had explored around the Adelaide Plains and found and named the Sturt River plains and found and named the Sturt River. Today this river enters St Vincent Gulf of Glenelg, so he saw the future site of Adelaide Under the heading Inviting Country, mount Lofty.
Speaker 6:Sturt's report says the party were quite delighted with the aspect of the country on either side of the inlet and with the bold and romantic scenery behind them. The former bore the appearance of natural meadows, lightly timbered and covered with a variety of grasses. The soil was observed to be a rich, fat, chocolate-coloured earth, probably the decomposition of the deep blue limestone that showed itself along the coast hereabouts blue limestone that showed itself along the coast hereabouts.
Speaker 3:So they described the area around where modern Adelaide is located as being natural meadows, lightly timbered and covered with a variety of grasses. What else would future colonists be asking for?
Speaker 6:Well, when discussing the view from Mount Lofty, the report says Immediately below the point on whichfty the report says, and apparently ran down southerly at the opposite base of the Mount Barker range. I think there can be but little doubt that my view from the southeast, that is, from the lake, extended over the same or a part of the same country. Captain Barker again slept on the summit of the range near a large basin that looked like the mouth of a crater, in which huge fragments of rocks made a scene of the utmost confusion. These rocks were a coarse grey granite of which the higher parts, rocks, made a scene of the utmost confusion. These rocks were a coarse grey granite of which the higher parts and northern termination of the Mount Lofty range are evidently formed, for Mr Kent remarks that it superseded the schistose formation at the ravine we have noticed and that subsequently the sides of the hills became more broken and valleys or gullies, more properly speaking, very numerous.
Speaker 6:Captain Barker estimated the height of Mount Lofty above the sea at 2,400 feet and the distance of its summit from the coast at 11 miles. Mr Kent says they were surprised at the size of the trees on the immediate abro of it. They measured one and found it to be 43 feet in girth. Indeed, he adds, vegetation did not appear to have suffered either from its elevated position or from any prevailing wind. Eucalypti were the general timber on the ranges, one species of which, resembling strongly the black-butted gum, was remarkable for a scent peculiar to its bark.
Speaker 2:He then describes what would become Port Adelaide.
Speaker 6:The report says he had, however, previously to this, examined the indentation in the coast which he had observed from Mount Lofty and had ascertained that it was nothing more than an inlet. A spit of sand projecting from the shore at right angles with it concealed the mouth of the inlet. They took the boat to examine this point and carried six fathoms soundings round the head of the spit to the mouth of the inlet. When it shoaled to two fathoms and the landing was observed to be bad by reason of mangrove swamps on either side of it, mr Kent, I think, told me that this inlet was from 10 to 12 miles long.
Speaker 2:Mangroves, swamps either side of the inlet. That's a frequent description of the entrance to Port Adelaide given by passengers and crew of ships entering there. After that description, sturt's report goes on.
Speaker 6:Between this inlet and the one formerly mentioned, a small and clear stream was discovered, to which Captain Barker kindly gave my name.
Speaker 6:On landing, the party, which consisted of the same persons as the former one, found themselves in a valley which opened direct upon the bay. It was confined to the north from the chief range by a lateral ridge that gradually declined towards and terminatedinated at the rocky point on which they had landed. The other side of the valley was formed of a continuation of the main range, which also gradually declined to the south and appeared to be connected with the hills at the extremity of the cape. The valley was from nine to ten miles in length and from three to four in breadth. In crossing it, they ascertained that the lagoon from which the schooner had obtained a supply of water was filled by a watercourse that came down its centre. The soil in the valley was rich but stony in some parts. There was an abundance of pasture over the whole, from amongst which they startled numerous kangaroos. The scenery towards the ranges was beautiful and romantic, and the general appearance of the country such as to delight the whole party.
Speaker 2:The small and clear stream is the Sturt River, which flows through the eastern suburbs of Adelaide today and enters Goulston Vincent at Glenelg. Sturt's report is saying that this area has great soil and pasture.
Speaker 3:Well, it's clear. Sturt's report is saying that the Adelaide lands are a great area for settlement. Does that report mention KI?
Speaker 2:Yes, here's the relevant section. It's short and to the point.
Speaker 6:Kangaroo Island is not, however, fertile by any means. It abounds in shallow lakes filled with saltwater during high tides and which, by evaporation, yield a vast quantity of salt.
Speaker 3:Hang on. This report by Sturt, published before the modified Sutherland report, says KI is rubbish and the Adelaide Plains are great. The obvious question is why did Wakefield and Guja recommend going to KI? Good question, I guess in the days before the internet maybe they were not aware of the Sturt report.
Speaker 2:Well, this is where this story gets even stranger. At the end of the modified Sutherland report there is a section that lists publications relating to Australia. The Sturt report is listed there. Wakefield and Guja must have had Sturt's report. They must have known that KI was nowhere as attractive as the Adelaide Plains.
Speaker 3:This is really odd. Do you have any idea what's going on here?
Speaker 2:Well, there's one bit of Sturt's report that I think is important. It's the section which describes how the First Nations people murdered Captain Barker. Barker's murder had also been reported in British and Australian newspapers.
Speaker 1:In April 1832, one British newspaper reported Barker's murder thus we regret to announce another most barbarous murder by the natives of New Holland in the death of Captain Barker of the 39th Regiment, late Commandant at King George's Sound. The circumstances attending this melancholy death are thus detailed in a government order by Governor Darling published in the Sydney Gazette on the 31st of May last.
Speaker 2:A memorial to Captain Barker was erected in Sydney in July 1832.
Speaker 3:Okay, so Barker's murder was reported, but why do you think that this is so important?
Speaker 2:Well, I think we need to take a wider look at emigration options for the English in the early 1830s. Let's look at this from a sales-come-marketing viewpoint. What products did the potential immigrant have to choose between? They could go either to United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia. Even in Australia, there were options. They could go to New South Wales or Tasmania. Both New South Wales and Tasmania were well-established colonies at this time. On the other hand, South Australia was a complete unknown.
Speaker 3:Fair enough, so Wakefield and Goodyear had to market their product with competition for other options.
Speaker 2:Yes, and under the Wakefield scheme there was a need for two distinct types of immigrants. As well as working class folk, the Wakefield scheme needed cashed up business people who would bring their capital to the colony.
Speaker 3:Yep. The Thomas family and others had completely uprooted their lives and their businesses to move to South Australia. The Thomas family bought a complete printing press with them when they came out on the African.
Speaker 2:Yes, poor working class folk had nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to a colony anywhere in the world, but immigrants like the Thomas family had everything at risk. So if I was a suspicious character, I might guess that Wakefield and Guja didn't want to highlight any reports that say that if you go to South Australia the locals might murder you. Hence they created a new report, the Modified Sutherland Report, to avoid having to mention Captain Barker's sad demise. This is just speculation of course, captain Barker's sad demise.
Speaker 3:This is just speculation, of course. Okay, do you have any justification for your speculation about a fear of attack by the locals?
Speaker 2:Well, I can't say that this is conclusive, but I remember a comment made by Mary Thomas about the deaths of Slater and Osborne In her diary. She commented that there is really no way of being sure how Slater and Osborne died.
Speaker 7:She wrote how it was settled. Of course, I had no means of ascertaining, except that Osborne, as usual, adhered to his friend and they parted company with the rest. All my endeavours to obtain a satisfactory explanation for their absence failed, and though I repeatedly questioned all those who returned, and Fisher in particular, I could get no other answer than that they were on their way and would soon arrive. As I said before, we never saw them again, and when all hope was gone, the painful task devolved on me to convey the melancholy tidings to Osborne's father. As the best means of doing so, I wrote to our agent in London, mr Leonard Bow, and gave him a full account, as far as I was able, of the whole affair, requesting him to go to Mr Osborne and break the sad news to him by degrees, and likewise to get it published in the Spectator, lest the people of England should think that the two unfortunate young men had been murdered by natives. There were none on Kangaroo Island at that time, except a few women, and they were employed by the white residents.
Speaker 2:Now it's interesting that she really makes a point of telling the folk back in England that Slater and Osborne were not killed by the natives. I'm guessing that there may have been some underlying fear in England that immigrants to South Australia might be attacked by the savages. If that fear was there, then publicising the Sturt Report, which included a section on Captain Barker being killed by the locals, would have progressed more quickly if they had gone straight to the site of Port Adelaide and the Adelaide Plains, rather than spending time on KI and then abandoning that site within a few years.
Speaker 3:Yes, it continues to make the use of the Sutherland Report even more curious. In summary, it could be argued that the promotion of the modified Sutherland report by Wakefield and co was a way of avoiding any mention of possible tax by First Nations people and thus discouraging potential immigrants from going to South Australia.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's about it. Well, that's my theory, anyhow.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, it's food for thought.
Speaker 2:Anyhow, in our next episode we'll talk about Proclamation Day and beyond. Proclamation Day was the day that Governor Hindmarsh arrived at Hove Fast Bay and a proclamation was read out, thus starting official settlement in the colony. We'll see how the colonists, including my ancestors, got on in those early days, Right. Well, thanks for listening.
Speaker 3:So it's goodbye from me, and it's goodbye from me, thank you.