Search This Blog

Sunday, 1 October 2023

Polymoth Books

Updated August 2026

One of my books mentioned below, Australianisms,  about Australian language when it emerged and which is now available as an ebook. using this link. 

Then there is The Biggest Book of Australian History, all the bits of our past that conservatives want to hide, Sign on the Dotted Lion, a commonplace book; The Lesser of Two Weevils, outrageous puns, feghoots and paronomasia For samples, see https://www.facebook.com/groups/736842831672293 )

Then there is my novel Sheep May Safely Craze, a wild ride the picaresque badlands, with insights into higher mathematics, lower mathematics and the dark side of pea soup.

Update, January 2025

Books being pitched this year:

I have been cleaning out the old files, and think these titles have legs: if they don't go to traditional publishers, they will be out through Polymoth.

The lesser of Two Weevils: juvenile to adult, intelligent wordplay. 

What on Earth: behind earth science. Late teen to adult: how scientists know.

Australia: a social history. The history they don’t teach in schools, but should: a much-expanded account, based on but well beyond The Big Book of Australian History.

Australianisms: when did we start saying that? Our national language.

The Cornish Boy: Quartet of YA Australian historical fiction.

Keeping People is Wrong: serious history of forced labour and near-slavery in Australia.

Echidnas and Their Friends: the biology of a curious mammal.

The Science of the Lambs: fantasy of a sort, for adults of all ages. .

Sorry, if the Australian language TinyURL brought you here. That link is not playing nicely, but this should get you there.

On the other hand, maybe you want to know what else I have been up to in the past couple of decades: if that is the case, read on. Or do both.

When my former ISP decided to get out of hosting web sites, they shut my sprawling web of sites down. This treacherous action was taken unilaterally, without either warning or consultation. Now, I must rebuild, and this is the start, commenced 1 October 2023.

The task has proved more onerous than I expected. One of my major contributions to scholarship, an analysis of early uses of Australian words has now been rescued. So has a template for playing with paper aeroplanes, and also a master sheet for messing with Möbius strips.

And if you want to know about the awards I have won for my work, they are at the end of this entry.

Note that all of these awards were for writing for children. The late Martin Amis once infamously commented that he would only write for children if he were brain-damaged, whereon many children’s authors said through gritted teeth that they would be happy to prepare him for his new career, but Amis was plain wrong. Writing for youngsters takes a lot more effort than writing for adults, because you have to catch kids’ interest and hold it. Those who write for the young have no problems reaching anybody up to advanced middle age.

Some 48 years back, I developed a “slow learner” writing style to be used for kids with reading or language problems. A few years on, I was an official, riding in the ranks and making decent policies happen, and when I tried this style on senior bureaucrats, I got immediate and positive responses, so I have used it on adults ever since (but please don’t tell them!)

Needless to say, it works for kids as well, and yes, “slow learner” is no longer PC, but it was fine in those days, and my writing got a lot of 1970s refugee kids into the main stream. So, I also write for adults, OK?

So what's a polymoth?

Me, that's what, over there on the right. Some of my friends are kind enough to call me a polymath, because I write about all sorts of things, but seriously, I just flit from thing to thing. I truly believe that if I were in school today, I would be diagnosed as ADHD, but I'm highly productive in lots of areas, and publishers with the minds of grocers get terrified by that mutability, which is why some of the books listed here were self-published, because I saw a need and plugged it, then got tired of talking to slow-witted publishers, fearful of this strange, flitting author. Other works are books that were commercially published but not reprinted, even when they had won assorted awards, and I did my own improved versions. So I'm a polymoth, and that's a word that usually only turns up on the web as a typo.

My sort of polymoth chases temporary obsessions into corners, bales them up, calms them down, and squeezes them until the juices flow. The juices make a rich ink in which words grow until they form a conga line, and march across the page. This is how books are created in the real world, and don't believe anybody who says otherwise.

Over time, there will be links to pages devoted to each title but here is a list of the works on offer here, both as ebooks and also as Print on Demand.  In due course, each of these will be a link to an entry for that book.

The double ISBNs below refer to the original edition and the current Amazon edition (the ISBNs are for the print edition, but there is also an ebook edition for each one). One book is also on Google Play.

Late May 2024

The ebook version of what was called The Big Book of Australian History is out now. It is now called Australia, a Social History, and it is three times as long as the original, lots of pics. I doubt it will ever go into dead-tree format.
This link will take you there: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0D2VH34RY 

May 2024, the most polymothish books of them all: 

You won't be the same after reading these

Australian Backyard Explorer (for kids) ISBN Amazon, 9798481633664, NLA, 9780642276841

Australian Backyard Naturalist (for kids) ISBN  Amazon, 9798495706415, NLA, 978064227

Australia's Hidden Heroes (all ages up to 99) ISBN Amazon, 979-8695940701

Australia's Pioneers, Heroes and Fools (older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798782772017, Pier 9, 9781741960488

Curious Minds (for older readers) ISBN NLA, 9780642277541. Amazon, 9798352827123

Kokoda Track: 101 Days (for teenagers and up) ISBN Amazon, 9798773321583, Black Dog, 9781876372965

Looking at Small Things (for kids) ISBN Amazon, 9798554636875

Mistaken for Granite (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798620093632

Mr Darwin's Incredible Shrinking World (for older readers)ISBN Amazon, 9798471053212, Pier 9. 9781741962796

Not Your Usual Australian Villains (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9781520917023

Not Your Usual Bushrangers (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9781728936932, Five Mile, 9781760065690

Not Your Usual Clever Ideas (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798554540233

Not Your Usual Gold Stories (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9781983092077, Five Mile, 9781760065706

Not Your Usual Treatments (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9781973560531

Old Grandpa's Book of Practical Poems (for kids of all ages up to 99) ISBN Amazon, 9798583706266

Playwiths (for kids of all ages up to 99) ISBN Amazon, 9798630095190

The Lawn: a social history (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798548866714, Pier 9, 9781741960396

The Monster Maintenance Manual (for kids of all ages up to 99) ISBN Amazon, 9798769371530, Pier 9, 9781741968088

The Nature of North Head (for everybody) ISBN Amazon, 9798554660238, Google, 9780642279514

The Nature of North Head, (special phone and tablet version, revised 2024

The Speed of Nearly Everything (for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798461321918, Pier 9, 9781741961362

They saw the difference (history of science for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798520324102

You Missed a Bit (history of Australia for older readers) ISBN Amazon, 9798552065523

Awards.

I have had a few of those in my time...

  • Seven CBCA long listings (notables), two CBCA short listings, one Honour Book and one Book of the Year;
  • One Short Listing in the NSW Premier's History Awards, Young People's History Prize ;
  • Two Australian Awards for Excellence in Educational Publishing;
  • One WA Premier's Book Award for Children's Literature;
  • One international White Ravens List entry (Germany);
  • One Wilderness Society Short List entry, and
  • Two Whitley awards.
In other words, there's some serious intellectual merit here.




[deleted]




Wednesday, 27 September 2023

The smelter and the smith

 Here is a peek from a new assemblage, a large historical background to science. It is the stuff that did not fit in my Murdoch Book 100 Discoveries, or 100 große Sprünge: Die bedeutendsten Entdeckungen und Erfindungen der Menschheit, (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag).

The idea is to look at the enabling knowledge that opened up science for us.

There were seven metals known in ancient times: gold, mercury, tin, lead, silver, copper, and iron (on rare occasions, it was found as the metal in meteorites). Most of the time, people who wanted to get some metal had to treat an ore in some way, to smelt it to get the metal. Around the same time that coiled pots were showing up around Çatal Höyük, people began to smelt lead, copper and other metals from their ores. The copper might have been from deposits of copper metal (‘native copper’), but lead beads from the same area must have been smelted from lead ore.

A suitable ore had to be available, and then somebody needed to find or know a way to smelt the ore and use the metal. Zinc has probably been smelted in India for at least 2300 years, maybe 3000 years, but the first European zinc was only prepared in 1736 (possibly using technology learned from India, as the method was identical). In the Middle east, where copper ore was available from Cyprus, the early Bronze Age coincided with the start of writing and the development of city states, but bronze was probably in use even earlier, in what is now Thailand.

In some places, like sub-Saharan Africa, there was no Bronze Age at all. People jumped straight from the New Stone Age (Neolithic) direct to the Iron Age, probably because they had iron ore but no copper ore, though perhaps the iron technology was imported. Iron was probably being smelted and worked in the Middle East around 1100 BCE, and it appeared 600 years later in West Africa.

Tin could have been smelted by accident if the right rocks were used to make a fireplace. People say copper and lead might have been discovered the same way, but this is unlikely, because copper smelting needs 1100°C and carbon monoxide to reduce the oxide to metal.

Lead could form by accident if a piece of the ore became buried in the ashes with limited oxygen, but both copper and lead were more likely to form in a potter’s kiln. One attractive theory is that potters began decorating their pots with minerals to add colour, noticed the metals that formed on the pots, and began experimenting.

Charcoal is dry and has 10% of the mass of the wood it came from, so charcoal fires burn hotter, if they have enough (but not too much) oxygen. With good charcoal and the right amount of air, a temperature of 1500°C is possible if the fire is surrounded to keep the heat in. An open fireplace with coals is unlikely to get higher than 600°C, even when a high wind blows through it, because the same high wind that promotes burning also carries away much of the heat. In other words, making metal needed the heat of a kiln or an oven, not the heat of an open fire. It was an art, not luck.

Copper is a soft metal, good enough to make maces but not blades, so Çatal Höyük is generally referred to as a chalcolithic site, a place where copper and stone were both used. Somewhere, somehow, somebody learned to make bronze, an alloy of copper with arsenic or tin. The earliest examples of copper/arsenic bronze come from Asia Minor in about 4200 BCE, while the harder copper/tin bronze was used from about 3200 BCE.

We can come up with plausible yarns to account for people making copper metal, but iron remains a bit of a mystery. It has a strong attraction to oxygen, which is why iron rusts so easily, and why iron oxide is a common iron ore. At around 900°C, the oxygen is more strongly attracted to carbon, so if iron oxide is collected from a bog or some other place, it can be converted to the metal. It takes a great deal more heat to melt iron, but the metal that forms at 900°C can be hammered and worked in a bloomery, and shaped into tools.

Smelting and refining did not always bring blessings. Cores taken from lake beds in the Andes reveal that Peruvians were smelting copper 1000 years ago, but around the year 1450, they switched to silver, which leaves a different pattern of pollution. They probably began smelting more silver because the Incas demanded that taxes be paid in silver. When the conquistadors took over in 1533, the silver-smelting pollution increased tenfold.

The ice of Greenland shows clear traces of pollution from copper production, dating back to about 500 BCE. This probably came mainly from the production of copper and bronze around the Mediterranean, even as they entered the Iron Age. The real advantage of iron was that it was cheap and easy to make iron weapons in large numbers. Even if gentlemen preferred bronze, a thousand poorly-trained peasants with shoddy iron stabbers can overwhelm 300 trained warriors with superb bronze swords.

In the end, a smith needed to shape and toughen the metal.

Shipping may also have been a factor. Ships would certainly have been up to carrying Cypriot copper ore or metal by 2000 BCE, possibly much earlier, but it is tempting to wonder if tin or tin ore was being carried to the Mediterranean from Cornwall by then: tin was certainly being mined and worked in Cornwall in about 2150 BCE. All around, the general picture of early metal working is clear, but many of the finds leave us still wondering. From Weland to Ogoun to Cullann to mpu Gandring, in many cultures (look them up!), the smith is seen as having the powers of a magician—and no wonder...


Thursday, 14 September 2023

A history of climate change.

Jens Galschiot's installation, Unbearable, in Copenhagen

In the savage illustration on the right, the J-curve that is skewering the polar bear reflects the graph of the unstoppable rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the curve is made from lengths of oil pipe. Sometimes, art and politics go together very well. 

We have known about what we used to call ‘global warming’ for quite a while, since the 1950s, though it was predicted (as a theory) in the 1820s and explained in the 1850s. Now reputable atmospheric scientists all believe human activity is driving the modern warming of our climate. All the same, they agree that global warming is a bad description, so we call it ‘climate change’. Under any name, it’s the same beast, and the same looming disaster. The problem used to be that there was not a lot of hard science in the arguments, which come down to logic, reason, careful modelling—and interpretation that is likely to be biased by a generous serving of self-interest among the nay-sayers.

In 1856 at the AAAS Annual Meeting, the work of Eunice Foote was presented, showing that carbon dioxide is a heat-blanketing greenhouse gas that in the atmosphere could warm the Earth. This was years before the work of the men usually credited with the finding (Tyndall in England and Arrhenius in Sweden, and we will come to them in a bit). Her work was in a short piece in The American Journal of Science and Arts for 1856 begins on p. 382, and says: “An atmosphere of that gas [carbonic acid, CO2] would give our earth a high temperature …”

Even before that, in the 1820s, Joseph Fourier had realised that heat-trapping by what we now call greenhouse gases might occur. Then in 1856, Foote identified carbon dioxide as the most likely threat, before John Tyndall said much the same thing in 1861. Back then, nobody thought much about it, then Svante Arrhenius reminded us in 1896 that both water vapour and carbon dioxide were ‘greenhouse gases’ (escaping that bad analogy is hard) and so water and carbon dioxide would play a role in making the planet get warmer.

He also considered that changes might be happening, and consulted Arvid Högbom, who just happened to know all about carbon dioxide sources and sinks. Carbon dioxide was coming from animals when they breathed, from volcanoes, and from humans burning fossil and other fuels. Arrhenius thought the human additions were a very small part of the total in the air already, perhaps one part in a thousand was added by the burning of coal, and there were probably checks and balances. Arrhenius estimated that in 3000 years, the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would double, but that such a doubling would raise world average temperatures by 5 to 6°C.

In 1896, the CO2 level was around 290 parts per million: in 2016, the value was estimated at 396 parts per million: we had travelled one third of the distance in 120 years. In 2018, it was 407.4 ppm, and in May 2023, it reached a seasonal peak of 424 ppm. My back-of-the-envelope scribblings suggest we will double the 1896 value by the 2070s, after about 180 years, rather than 3000 years.

To Europeans back then, the warming effect seemed nothing to worry about, because nobody had stopped to consider the cascades, the flow-ons that might be driven by that rise in temperature. A thermodynamics expert, Walter Nernst, even wondered if it would be feasible to set fire to uneconomical and low-grade coal seams, so as to release enough carbon dioxide to warm the Earth’s climate deliberately!

In December 2019, Australia recorded its six hottest days ever, and 2023 now looks to be set to be the hottest ever, around the globe, but the trend was apparent even in 1950, when George Kimble reported in Scientific American that the northern limit of wheat-growing in Canada had moved northward some 200 or 300 miles (call it 400 kilometres), adding that farmers in southern Ontario were experimenting with growing cotton. While the Canadian cotton industry seems not to have taken off yet, he reported another trend that continues to this day, the northward retreat of the permafrost:

In parts of Siberia the southern boundary of permanently frozen ground is receding poleward several dozen yards per annum.

The matter open to question back in 1950 was the cause. Kimble noted that the Domesday Book listed 38 vineyards in England in 1086, in addition to those of the Crown. He pointed to the Greenland colony which was frozen out, back around the mid-1400s and other evidence that climates change. He looked also at Biblical evidence on the distribution of date palms to suggest that conditions in 1950 were much like those of Biblical times, providing a picture of a climate that fluctuates around a mean. Nothing to see here…

In the 1990s, global warming was in much the same position that “continental drift” had been in, a generation earlier, with some of the scientists arguing furiously, even when they agreed on the main principles, and as in the puzzle of the wandering continents, the key evidence was all there. The problem is that once again we were stuck with a bad analogy, just as the early 1960s saw us hung up on “continental drift”.

Mind you, when I covered the 2002 Spring Conference of the American Geophysical Union, there were no nay-sayers there on plate tectonics or climate change. The problem is that so long as people can get away with saying “global warming”, we are once again stuck with a bad label, just as the early 1960s saw us hung up on “continental drift”.

Scientists are always slow to move to a new model, a new way of understanding, something called a paradigm, and I lived through the plate tectonics paradigm shift, and saw some of the brawling. There was fuss and bother along the way, but in the end, the good science was recognised and accepted.

Now about the ‘greenhouse effect’: in cold climates, a greenhouse is a glass shed which allows sunlight to shine in, where much of the energy is absorbed and changed to heat. Glass is less transparent to heat than it is to light, but a greenhouse does not just trap warmth that way: it also holds a body of warm air around the plants, and protects them from wind-driven evaporation. So while we still speak of ‘greenhouse gases’, it is rare to hear anybody mention the greenhouse effect these days.

In the last ten years we have seen how the climate spin-doctors were using the same crooked tactics that were used to hide the harm that tobacco does. Nowadays, nobody denies that the Earth is getting warmer, because the evidence is there, but we stay with the less-easy-to-lie about climate change.

Why? Mainly, the cost of disagreement and bickering is higher in this fight. It mattered not at all if people disagreed about plate tectonics (except, perhaps, that it makes tsunamis like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami easier to understand), but global warming will be a major disaster for humanity, and any delay has the potential to cost lives. To understand this, we have to accept some puzzling propositions.

To take one example, the formation of cold salty water in the Norwegian Sea is probably what stops Dublin and New York being iced-in each winter. This is because of the cold brine that drives a current known as the Conveyor, which in turn drives the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream takes warm water from the Caribbean and swirls it up around the North Atlantic, contributing to fogs and breaking icebergs loose, but keeping many ports warm and open, even in winter.

Just as the prion proteins of mad cow disease have more than one stable form, so do weather patterns, and if the weather once drops into a new pattern, we may not be able to bounce it back to where it started. A golf ball in a wok lies at the bottom, and if you move it and let it go, it will roll back down. That is a stable system. A golf ball, sitting on a long cardboard tube doesn’t fall, so we might say it is stable, but if you knocked it over, it wouldn’t come back to this position. We say it is metastable.

The golf ball on the tube is stable to small nudges, but only within limits. Humpty Dumpty had two positions, one on the wall and one off it, and according to the nursery rhyme, the second was a position of no return. On the wall, Humpty Dumpty was metastable, but beside the wall, he was stable, and broken.

Climate patterns are either stable or metastable. If they are pushed too hard, they may ‘flip’ into a new metastable pattern (or even break), and only then, too late, do we discover that they were metastable (or even breakable). The best example of a probably metastable pattern is the monsoon system that waters much of Asia and the north of Australia, but El Niño and Indian Ocean Dipole are other possibles.

Climate scientists worry that severe changes may deliver a push that will take a metastable pattern away from what we know, and there might be no way of returning to the original pattern. The good news is that as northern Europe freezes over, the glaciers which are now melting away fast will be replenished, lowering sea levels. The increased snow cover will also increase the reflectivity of the northern hemisphere, and that may cool the planet down a little. We just have to hope it does not trigger a new stable pattern that happens to be an ice age.

The actual changes that might follow any breaking point are hard to predict. They are unlikely to be spectacular and major, and probably they will do their harm stealthily, when roads, bridges, port facilities and cities are flooded, or when agricultural land is lost, either by being covered by the sea or as a result of drastically changed rainfall patterns.

If rock is exposed in Antarctica, this could lead to a low pressure zone over the icy continent that could change weather patterns around the world. It hasn’t happened yet, but we need to learn from history. Ten years ago, no politician would take a long-term view and force the changes needed in the next thirty to forty years, when most of them are elected for a mere three to four years, before they face the voters again.

It is easier to bleat plaintively that there is no real agreement among the scientists yet (there is, actually), or that some eminent scientists (they aren’t eminent: just look at where their funding comes from) believe there are other explanations. That saves the politicians from having to act—and the honesty of scientists in saying that they cannot be sure just how things will go wrong allows devious short-term opportunists to prattle that “the scientists aren’t sure…”.

Politics is a marvellous human discovery. It is a pity that politicians still have to discover humanity and consider its prospects. It is likely that politics, dithering, duck-shoving and shilly-shallying will make this disaster happen, and many of the effects will seem to be unrelated to the climate.

Take dengue (pronounced den-GAY) fever, which is caused by the dengue fever virus, which is transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. The geographic range of Aedes aegypti is limited by freezing temperatures that kill overwintering larvae and eggs, so dengue virus transmission is limited to tropical and subtropical regions.

Aedes albopictus is also capable of spreading dengue fever. As a rule, the Aedes mosquitoes are recognizable by their striped legs (which give Aedes albopictus its nickname of ‘tiger mosquito’), and the fact that they bite by day.

Dengue fever involves an internal haemorrhage that sometimes leads to shock—a drop in blood pressure and failure of blood cells to meet the metabolic demands of the body. It is a leading cause of death among children in Southeast Asia, killing about 1% of all cases. It includes four distinct viruses or serotypes, dengue 1 through dengue 4. As in the case of malaria, mosquitoes become infected with dengue after taking a blood meal from a dengue-infected person.

People infected with dengue virus develop dengue fever or dengue haemorrhagic fever. Dengue fever is also known as ‘breakbone disease’ because of severe headache and joint pain associated with it. Dengue haemorrhagic fever is far more serious than the rarely fatal dengue fever.

After a short incubation period of 1 or 2 weeks, the mosquito can transmit the infection to a susceptible person. An infection with any of the four serotypes confers protective lifelong immunity, but only to that serotype. The risk of developing haemorrhagic dengue appears to be increased among people later infected with a different serotype. In recent years, haemorrhagic dengue has become increasingly common in tropical America.

Climate change is expected not only to increase the range of the mosquito but would also reduce the size of the mosquito’s larval size and, ultimately, its adult size. Since smaller adults must feed more frequently to develop their eggs, warmer temperatures would boost the frequency of double feeding and increase the chance of transmission, which will happen when the first person bitten is carrying the virus.

Warmer temperatures reduce the incubation time for the virus. The incubation period of the dengue type-2 virus is 12 days at 30°C, but seven days at 32 to 35°C. Half the world’s population is currently at risk from the disease, and it has recently become a serious problem in Latin America. Brazil alone had a quarter of a million cases in 1997.

Dengue is hard to eradicate once it is established. In Australia, it reappeared in north Queensland in 1981 after being absent for some 25 years, and it spreads each year through the areas of northern Australia where the Aedes aegypti mosquito is found, though cases are reported from across Australia each year, as a result of people being infected in either the north of the continent or overseas.

There have been suggestions in the past that global warming could lead to a spread of the Aedes aegypti mosquito, and thus the disease, but at the moment, Australian cases seem to be limited to about 200 a year. There is, however, a massive increase in cases across the whole of the western Pacific. Our turn will come…

Saturday, 9 September 2023

Haycock goes bankrupt

This is a second out-take that didn't fit my upcoming Australia: a Social History.  The work began with The Big Book of Australian History, which went through four editions under the National Library of Australia's imprint. but as they have lost the plot, I am going my own way.

This version is 2.5 times the size of the original version. Soon, I will be seeking a publisher...

* * *

The man identified by Henry Brown as W. W. Haycock, appears to have usually used the name George Washington Haycock. Brown later called Haycock one of those who had been convicted of no crime, but who, nonetheless, “have found themselves in scrapes which have compelled them to leave their own country”. As we will see later, that was not his real name, but “Haycock” began to take a prominent position in local affairs around Bendigo (or Sandhurst, as it was then called) in 1856. He was a trader, and one of the town’s principal merchants. Nothing could be done, Brown said, unless Haycock agreed to it. The American was admired, and he helped many less successful traders, but Brown took an instinctive dislike to him. Brown thought the praise given to Haycock seemed unwarranted, but still the man did well.

Then, one day, Brown found he had been right to trust his instincts:

…we were astonished one day by receiving the following communication by express,—

“Confidential. Melbourne.” “Haycock, we believe, has bolted; we inclose a draft of Two Hundred and Fifty Pounds, payable at his office in Sandhurst, which he gave us a week since, obtain the money if possible, remit to Melbourne, and keep this communication a secret, for we may be mistaken.”
— Henry Brown, Victoria As I Found It, 228 – 9.

The message came from a good friend, so Brown went seeking the money, only to be told Haycock was in Melbourne, there was no money on hand, and that Haycock would return in two or three days.

Brown pushed them, saying the order was made payable on demand, and in the end, Haycock’s credit being so good, his clerk went out and borrowed the money from other firms. A week later, the news was all over Bendigo, and people who had been caught out feared going bankrupt. When Brown told his friends he had no dealings with Haycock, they reminded him that other firms would also “go smash”, but Brown had settled up accounts with all the at-risk houses during the previous week.

One American store and hotel-keeper had made a great deal of money, but having injured himself, placed all of his savings in Haycock’s hands, on the promise that the men would meet in Melbourne, where Haycock would pay over the cash. Then he headed for Melbourne to take a ship home to retirement, but the money never came. He missed his ship, and feared that Haycock and his money were on board. Then another American told the truth about Haycock, and the man realised he had lost everything.

The truth-teller knew Haycock was an assumed name, because the two had grown up in the same small town. He was liked, did well, and when a fire almost ruined him, his friends helped him get going again. Then, one day, Haycock bolted, running off with a large amount of money, and people began wondering if his fire had been suspicious.

He went to the American “Slave States” where he married a lovely girl, the daughter of a planter, but three days later, he deserted her and went to California. His brother-in-law caught up with him there and abused him for deserting his wife, at which point they agreed to duel. Haycock’s first shot pierced his brother-in-law’s heart. People were furious, so he cleared out again, and the narrator came across him, working a neighbouring claim near Bendigo. When he addressed Haycock by his real name, the man asked him to keep his secret and use only his new name.

“Haycock” said he was a reformed character. The narrator saw no use in “outing” him, when he was so poor. Soon after, though, he put up a small tent and began buying old tools, such as broken picks, damaged cradles. He would mend these and sell them, did well, and soon Haycock was well-known as an agent, cattle dealer, and general merchant.

All this time I watched his conduct narrowly, and could see nothing amiss, besides he was a sad man, and in the midst of his success, it seemed to me, that his former crimes weighed heavily upon him; for many of you will remember how rare was his smile, and a laugh proceeding from those lips, I think, you have none of you ever heard.
— Henry Brown, Victoria As I Found It, 234.

Brown said everybody just assumed that Haycock had run off with all the money, but after he was found drowned, it emerged that he had got a barber to shave off his long beard, and pawned a pistol. He must have wandered the countryside, hungry and fearing his creditors, people said.

Later, some gentlemen of Bendigo and elsewhere were summoned to Geelong to confirm that the exhumed corpse of a drowned man was Haycock. The statement below, taken from the pages of The Argus, has been abbreviated by the deletion of some irrelevant legal formalities.

We, Thomas Kirk Newton, of Melbourne, gentleman; Thomas Disher, of the same place, gentleman; James Boone, of Sandhurst, doctor of medicine; Decimus Prothero, of Bathurst, New South Wales, gentleman; Sumner Cummings Fraser, of Sandhurst, drover; and Robert Hadin Smith, of Melbourne, articled clerk, severally and respectively do solemnly and sincerely declare that we have this day exhumed and carefully examined the body said to be that of the late George Washington Haycock, late of Sandhurst aforesaid, and that the said body is that of the said George Washington Haycock, beyond doubt or dispute…

(Signed) Thos. Kirk Newton, Thomas Disher, James Boone M.D., Decimus Prothero, Sumner Cummings Fraser, Robert H. Smith. Declared at Geelong, in the colony of Victoria, this 30th day of September, A.D. 1856, before me (signed) Charles Ibbotson, J.P.
— The Argus, 1 October 1856, 5.

Some people had their doubts about the identification, and at least one of them said so, rather forcefully, in this curious letter, signed ‘Vox’. According to ‘Vox’, the report signed by Newton, Disher, Boone, Prothero, Fraser, and R. H. Smith was not only puerile, but childish, not creditable to those gentlemen. The writer was not prepared to accept their identification.

Let six men of only common sense examine the disputed body, take the height and weight, a plaster cast of the face, a few photographic likenesses, some of the hair, and general and particular description of his body; give this to the public, and they will determine for themselves. If this is not enough, seal up the body in a zinc shell, and forward it to Bendigo, where I am disposed to believe there will be found some Bendigonians who can determine the question.
— Bendigo Advertiser, 15 October 1856, 2.

Without some effort, “the majority here will continue to believe that the body in question is not that of G. W. Haycock.” One of those pilloried, Decimus Prothero, was a wealthy grazier from Bathurst, and he had “had dealings” with Haycock. One of these dealings was a mob of 12,000 cattle that crossed the Murray into Victoria in late August 1856, about the time Haycock ran off. In all probability, Prothero had lost money in those dealings.

Prothero did not appreciate the tone of the letter, and having identified ‘Vox’, he took the law into his own hands. Before we look at the ensuing court case, here is a fact that the Bendigo Advertiser added when they reprinted the letter: one of the six gentlemen in the statement was Haycock’s “medical attendant” (in other words, Dr Boone), and he recognised the body by certain scars that it bore.

So Prothero was right to be annoyed, though he may have been just a little robust in his actions, but ‘Vox’, alias Hutchison was hardly a model of rectitude in making his comments! In the following report from the Mount Alexander Mail, one reference may need explanation: “Professor Sands” was a well-known hairdresser and barber. Prothero appeared before Messrs. M’Lachlan, Hunt, and Emmett, at the police office, Sandhurst, to answer a charge of having, the day before, assaulted Dr. Hutchison. He entered a plea of guilty. Hutchison said he was standing on the previous afternoon outside the Shamrock Hotel, when the defendant came up and asked if his name was Acheson, and he said it was not. The defendant went away, then returned to ask if his name was Hutchison. He confirmed this, at which point Prothero pointed to a folded newspaper that he held. Was he the author of a letter in that paper? At this point, we switch to the published account.

Complainant said that if his name was attached to any letter in any paper he certainly was the author of it, but if his name was not appended to it, he should decline to answer any question put by a mere stranger in the public streets. Defendant then seized complainant by the beard and plucked it out, and one of the bystanders then interfered and took the defendant away…

The defendant here explained that he had acted upon strong provocation. He had been in company with some other gentlemen, to Geelong, for the purpose of identifying the body of G. W. Haycock, and had done so, and having stated that he considered the body to be absolutely and truly that of Mr. Haycock, a letter had appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser calling his word into question, and this letter he had ascertained was written by the complainant. He did not deny the assault: he certainly had pulled the Doctor’s beard out, and now begged to return it to him.

(Defendant here drew from his pocket the complainant’s beard, wrapped in paper, and suggested that Professor Sands would stick it on again for eightpence.)

The bench found that a most unwarrantable assault had been committed, that free speech ought to be allowed without risk, and Mr Prothero was to recollect he was not in California. The defendant was to be fined £10, or in default of payment ten days’ imprisonment. The fine was immediately paid. Haycock’s disappearance may well have cost Prothero dearly, because Prothero himself disappeared from the Australian scene rather oddly, the following year, after this announcement in the Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal:

Sir, I write to request you to be good enough to insert in your next publication the fact that I, finding my affairs in a state of hopeless entanglement, have gone to England for the purpose of seeing my friends, who are rich and respectable, and who will, I believe, do anything to avert dishonour from the family. My absence will, I hope, be no more than seven months.

“Your obedient servant, DECIMUS PROTHERO.
— Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, 7 October 1857, 3.

He seems to have stayed in Britain.

Thursday, 24 August 2023

The talented Mr Stephen

This is an out-take that didn't fit my upcoming The Big(ger) Book of Australian History.  The work began with The Big Book of Australian History, which went through four editions under the National Library of Australia's imprint. but as they have hesitated too long, I am going my own way, though the title will now be Australia: a social history.

The odd original title reflects that this version is 2.5 times the size of the original version. Soon, I will be seeking a publisher...

* * *

The colony of South Australia was 15 years old in 1851, but the population was disappearing as all the young and fit men, rushed off to hunt for gold in Victoria. Adelaide could not afford to lose its most capable workers, and so the saga of Mitchell’s Flat started, following the offer of £1000 in the South Australian Register on 17 December 1851 ‘…for the purpose of rewarding the discoverers of productive gold-fields…’

South Australians knew Australia’s first gold mine had been in their colony, so now they began looking harder, for more gold. George Milner Stephen was a gifted man, a member of a powerful family of lawyers and judges, and probably too clever for his own good, which may explain why and how he became involved in a scandal.

He may have been trapped by others because he was too trusting, but his later history makes it more likely that he was in the original plot, up to his neck. His family was notable for its brilliance and also for its long history of instability and living on the edge.

His brother had a convict mistress in Sydney and helped her to escape to New Zealand. Another member of the family was a judge who became insane during a famous British murder trial, yet another was a suspect in the ‘Jack the Ripper’ case, while Virginia Woolf (née Stephen), filled her pockets with stones and drowned herself.

George Milner Stephen clearly thought he could fool people. This first ‘game’ may not have been a fraud: he was never in a position to make money from it, and somebody else may have been the hoaxer, but he was certainly a fraudulent quack later on. On 29 December, 1851, Charles Bonney and Herschel Babbage, both Government Commissioners, were taken by five men, including Mr Stephen, a sharebroker named Edmund Freeman, and Freeman’s lawyer, to the Mount Lofty Ranges, outside Adelaide.

Bonney and Babbage reported to the Colonial Secretary on 30 December, and the South Australian Register had the news the next day, New Year’s Eve. They had just one spade and one pan, but after ten washings, they had found gold in the pan, every time—but that was not necessarily the same thing as finding gold on the site.

If there had been several pans, it would have been far harder for one person to add gold to each pan, and without any doubt, some sort of addition took place. Babbage and Bonney advised the government against selling any of the land in the area, hinting that somebody had played a few tricks.

Still, the South Australian Register mentioned that the locality was on a tributary of the Onkaparinga River, where gold had been found some years earlier, and that ‘…those who make Mitchell’s Flat their destination will not be very far out.’

Then, as now, New Year’s Day was a holiday, and the Register said on 3 January 1852, that 400 to 500 people headed for Mitchell’s Flat. They found no gold, and before long, some of them must have been wishing that Mr Stephen or the Commissioner of Crown Lands was there to show them where to look.

One of the men in the original party, Galbraith by name, had recently returned from Mount Alexander so he could have supplied the planted gold. He may have been a part of the fraud, but he may also have been innocent. Galbraith was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying a friend had said that the find was Mount Alexander gold,

…which belief was confirmed through the course of the day by the man himself confessing, that one of Mr. Stephen’s party placed the gold in the pan for him.
— Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February 1852, 3.

The Herald quoted the editor of the Morning Chronicle as saying Stephen had:

…addressed a note to him in which he, Mr. G. M. Stephen says, ‘that this man, Buckland, put the piece of gold in the pan to play off a practical joke.’

Already, people had their suspicions, but Stephen was said to be out looking for gold and could not be found to be questioned. On his return on 8 January, he said he was personally convinced, or else why had he been out seeking for more gold? He had spent money on the search, and even tried to buy blocks of land there.

In passing, he mentioned Freeman’s former business partner, a Mr Galbraith, who had recently returned from Mount Alexander. Babbage said that Stephen had gone back to prospect in a hole from which Charles Bonney had apparently taken gold on 29 December—and failed to find any. Either Stephen genuinely expected to find gold there, or he was cunningly covering his tracks.

Then the Sydney Morning Herald picked up the tale, and a new name appeared, that of a man called Buckland. Soon after, Stephen and Galbraith claimed to have learned that Buckland had played a practical joke, which is probably true, at least in part. The angry Adelaideans who had sweated on New Year’s Day were not amused.

But was Buckland alone in the hoax (or fraud)? Somebody arranged to take just one spade and one pan. That person wanted to control things, and was a guilty party, probably the guilty party. Sadly, we will never know who it was. Another piece of evidence for the innocence of Mr Stephen comes from a comment passed by Herschel Babbage in his report, written on 8 January 1852.

Babbage was no fool: he was the son of Charles Babbage, the 19th century pioneer of mechanical computers, and he assisted his father in that work. He bore the name of his father’s good friend, the astronomer Sir John Herschel. The son had worked with the famous engineer of Victorian Britain, Isambard Kingdom Brunel on planning railways in Italy, and Babbage’s report on sanitation in the town of Haworth, written at the request of Patrick Brontë, the father of those Brontës, led to massive changes there. He was, as they say, connected—and bright.

So naturally, Babbage was chosen in 1851 as just the person to undertake a mineralogical and geological survey of South Australia. This was just at the start of scientific specialisation, and any scientist was still expected to be able to do all sorts of things—even though the word ‘scientist’, coined in 1841, was not widely used. Babbage, the man of science, did not mince his words, and they were of sufficient interest for them to be reprinted in Sydney, several weeks later on 28 January 1852.

It rests then between Mr. George Milner Stephen and his constituents to point out the parties who have, by the introduction of pieces of gold into the soil washed upon the previous occasion, attempted to mislead the Government and the public.
— The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 January 1852, 2.

Babbage seems to be saying, by implication, that Stephen was not the guilty party. The same Sydney Morning Herald article went on to quote a statement made by Freeman, generally protesting his innocence, but mentioning two key names: Buckland and Galbraith.

…I have since the day above-mentioned seen gold washed and dug out of the soil at Mitchell’s Flat, by one Buckland, on two occasions—one being in the presence of one T. N. Mitchell, and one in the presence of a working man belonging to a party fitted out by Mr. Milner Stephen; and I have also seen two pieces of gold there dug and washed out of the soil, in the presence of Messrs. Penman and Davie, by one Mr. Galbraith…

The guilty party was lucky, and the affair was dismissed as just a hoax, and it may indeed have been no more than a prank that got out of hand. A few years later, Stephen claimed that his find had been real, and was an outlying part of the Echunga field, but nobody took very much notice.

In early 1870, Stephen invented a ‘Gold and Diamond Cradle Amalgamator’. Later in the year, he followed that up with a ‘cheap and portable hammer quartz-crushing battery’. These were praised by others, but the clever Mr Stephen, also an accomplished artist and musician, may not have been quite the innocent he pretended to be. From 1880 until his death in 1894, George Milner Stephen had a flourishing practice as a mesmeric or spiritualist healer, using what he called the “red flannel cure”, because he used red flannel in his treatments.

Here the author must emerge briefly as a player. I have experience both as a perpetrator of hoaxes (for non-fraudulent purposes), and also in fraud investigation, catching genuine crooks. I gave up that trade for the safer alternative of teaching teenage boys, but catching frauds and keeping a lid on bright young minds are both professions that require confidence and the ability to make the “marks” believe what you need them to believe.

On one occasion, I only survived a fraud investigation unscathed because I played the part of Mr Bean so hard that the malefactors, who had broken the arm of one colleague and threatened another with a pistol, ignored me as harmless, when I turned up to ask questions. We knew there was fraud going on, but not how it was being worked. I needed data that I could feed to a computer, and once we had that in a spreadsheet, we knew who was behind it. Dismissing me as a numpty, they gave me the evidence we needed, confident that I was an idiot, and we nailed them. My point is this: I know when something has the wrong smell, and the tale that follows reeks of deception, as I will show in my comments.

Picture a train in April, 1880, travelling from Melbourne to Sandhurst (Bendigo, today). Captain and Mrs Organ, of Prahran are in the saloon carriage, clearly respectable people. A man, apparently an invalid, is carried in by two men, one dressed as a clergyman, and they lay him out on a seat.

A third man is present, Max Kreitmayer, and I will say something of his profession later, because it was he who wrote to The Argus to tell of the events that unfolded. He said the invalid explained that he had been thrown out of a buggy some two months earlier, that a week previously he took a Turkish bath, and in walking afterwards in Collins street staggered and fell, and had lost the use of his legs. Notice all the irrelevant detail, designed to distract the reader? The key point came next: the man was going to Castlemaine to get buried or cured, as his friends lived there. Kreitmayer purported to test this claim:

I gave one of his legs a good pinch, and he assured me that he did not feel it, and consequently I put his case down as a decided case of paralysis. I noticed that when he wished to raise himself a little he had to hold on to the rack above, and on several occasions I lifted the legs off and on the couch, to change his position…
— Argus, 8 May 1880, 8.

So we have an amateur diagnosis, stated as fact, and now the scene is set. The innocents (the Organs) are in place to act as witnesses: cue the miracle worker!

At Gisborne station, Mr George Milner Stephen (whom I knew by sight many years ago) entered the carriage, and had to sit close to the sick man for want of room. He offered his rug, to insure more comfort, and naturally asked what was the matter. The man repeated his story, and Mr Stephen, in a decided tone said, “I can cure you.”

Kreitmayer described how Milner Stephen began his treatment, and notice how the allegedly sick man is now “the patient”—like subliminal advertising, this slips beneath your guard, unless you are looking for it.

My curiosity was aroused to fever heat, and I watched events. Mr Stephen asked the patient to lie on his face, and after making a few passes and breathing on the supposed injured spot, he told him “to rise,” which summons he obeyed with slight success, and he dropped on the seat again, saying that the pain seemed considerably less. He then rose and walked…

Amazing! Hallelujah! Hosanna! (and any other cry that will get the innocent “marks” excited!). Stephen repeated the process and told the man “rise and walk across the carriage.” The man did so and returned to his place without any support.

In 34 minutes after leaving Gisborne, at Kyneton, I left the carriage for a few minutes, and on returning, to my astonishment the patient had gone. Looking out, I found him on the platform, walking about very carefully, and on arrival at Castlemaine, he took his luggage and walked away. Altogether the affair has been so vividly impressed upon my mind, that I can recall the most trifling conversation or incident on this ever memorable journey.

The writer signed himself this way: “MAX. L. KREITMAYER, Waxworks, Bourke-street, May 1”. A cynic might say: how curious that nobody seems to have noticed that Kreitmayer was a good showman himself!

With that spectacular launch, Stephen was off and running. His “cure” was effected by breathing on people through a piece of red flannel, and while a few believed in him, others knew him of old and had their doubts about the aging faith-healer. But was Stephen genuinely convinced he had “the power”? He was no goose, but he may have had delusions of gander.

Others had no doubts at all: two years after Stephens’ death, a coroner was summing up in the case of Honora Judd who died in Melbourne after being attended by a “Professor” Davis, another fraud. The coroner railed against ignorant people who went to quacks, and cited the case of an intelligent journalist whose arm had been hurt by lightning. He had consulted Milner Stephen and his red flannel, and imagined an improvement, “…but soon found his mistake out.”

Flannel was always a favourite folk and quack remedy, long before Milner Stephen. Even John Wesley recommended flannel, though as usual, he offered a whole range of other remedies, in this case, his treatments for chilblains included flannel socks, chamois leather socks and a poultice of onions. Colin Mackenzie, on the other hand, thought flannel good to deal with consumption: the flannel might even prevent the disease altogether!

A complete suit of flannel, worn next the skin, is an indispensable article for every one who is even inclined to this most fatal disorder.
— Colin Mackenzie, Mackenzie’s Ten Thousand Receipts in all the useful and domestic arts, 127.

Monday, 19 June 2023

They truly belonged

The magistrates of colonial Australia were, as we say, a rum bunch, and many of them were bent. The blue text is extracted from chapters 14 and 14 of Involuntary Belonging.

We have already seen something of how Aborigines were treated, as serfs that came, with the land, belonging to the new possessor of the land. This held, even when the land was taken without the permission of those who, in the law, we are now more likely to recognise as the rightful owners, but there is more that needs to be said. It is possible that the Aborigine did indeed belong to that Country, but he also seems to have been treated as a possession to the extent that any gold he found belonged to the new ‘owner’.

Around 1900, a writer claimed that indentures protected Aboriginal women. The agreements had to be witnessed by either Resident Magistrates, Justices of the Peace, persons appointed under the Act, or officers of the police force. These people, said a letter writer, just a little bit naïvely, were unlikely to witness an agreement between employers and natives unless the natives were willing to make such agreement, and were under no fear, coercion, or constraint.

Until 1900, the Police Act had made it an offence to tamper with or detain another person’s native servant, and a breach led to a fine of from £20 to £40, when costs were added in. The writer then cited a case where a white man in the Gascoyne district had lured away “a rather nice looking native girl”.

Her employer took out a summons, the man was fined, and the girl was ordered to go back to her service “where she is still”. This was too much for the editor, who expostulated: “Still there after eight years; the 12 months agreement is evidently pretty durable.” Men, on the other hand, were “caught and apprenticed to a kind master at about nothing and sixpence a year”, said the writer in The Bulletin, as quoted in a Perth newspaper.

Westralia is proud of its slave system on the ground that it prevents native girls being led astray by wandering white men of the swagman and prospector description [but] doesn’t make the seduction of aboriginal girls a punishable offence. It doesn’t protect them to any extent that is worth a straw against their own white boss, the squatter. Before they are “apprenticed” or enslaved, or after their period of enslavement has expired, the law takes no notice of their morals, and does nothing in particular for their protection.

During their spell of slavery it doesn’t protect their morals either, but it falls like Sodom and Gomorrah on any bad man who beguiles them away and thereby deprives the good boss of their services. And it is presumably out of the ‘Groper law’s anxiety to preserve the morals of the aboriginal girl that it compels the aboriginal man to also work for the squatter as his “apprentice” at nothing or thereabouts per annum — at least it doesn’t actually compel him, but when [offensive word]s are scarce an obliging J.P. is generally at hand to gaol the aboriginal for vagrancy till he consents, of his own free will, and quite voluntarily, to be indentured.

The Westralian boss magnates have always had a great yearning after the [offensive word]’s soul, and in the early days they couldn’t, sleep at night for wondering how to save the local black girl in the Altogether [i.e., naked] from being led astray. Then it dawned on them that the best way to save her soul was to make her work darned hard without anything that could be called wages, and in consequence of this discovery their minds have been at ease ever since.
—
West Australian Sunday Times
1 April 1900. 8 (taken from The Bulletin).

Not sickened yet? Try this, but be warned that it is unpleasant reading, which is why, among family and friends, I call this Bog-snorkelling in a cess-pit. 

In September 1897, Ernest William Anderson, one of the proprietors of Bendhu Station in the Pilbara, reported to the officer in charge of the local police that on the 13th, three aboriginal natives, identified as Spider, Biddy, and Polly, had died at Bendhu. Their names were actually Pringamurra, Warradamngenmia, and Narilung. These three, and three others who survived, had “escaped” (‽), so Alexander Anderson went in pursuit of them and

… encountered them at Redbank, 24 miles from Bendhu. He persuaded them to return, leaving the following morning for home. He arrived at the station at half-past two that day, having, it is stated, walked the absconders the distance of 24 miles without water. It is further alleged that on reaching the homestead the natives were soundly thrashed by the Anderson Brothers with a piece of half-inch rope, and were then allowed to drink water from the well. Shortly afterwards they sickened, and the three of the aboriginals first named died about six o’clock that evening.
— The West Australian, 23 September 1897, 5.

When you read this, note that the victims “escaped” and were then “persuaded” and later “thrashed” . To me, that is a state of slavery, pure and simple, though they weren’t traded, so far as we know. Maybe, just barely, it was not slavery in the strict sense.

Anderson reported the deaths to the police, suggesting that the victims died from being overheated and then swallowing too much water. Sergeant McCarthy notified the Coroner, and sent a constable to proceed to collect information from witnesses and make arrangements for an inquiry. Later, the District Coroner travelled to Bendhu, and, obtaining a jury of three at Bamboo Creek, conducted an investigation into the case.

The jury returned a verdict that the deaths were caused by exhaustion caused by travelling the deceased natives from Redbank to Bendhu without water. They added a rider, censuring the Andersons for the manner in which they had beaten the deceased people. The coroner also examined two of the survivors, girls aged 8 and 12, and squeamish readers may prefer not to read this next paragraph, even though you really should:

… both appeared to have been severely beaten, the former’s back being one mass of festering wounds of the color of sunbaked clay. She presented a pitiable spectacle, whilst the aspect of the elder girl Louie, was not much less deplorable … The Anderson Bros. are but young men, the elder, Ernest, being about 21 years of age, whilst the younger, Alex, would be something like 18.
— The Pilbarra Goldfield News (Marble Bar) 1 October 1897, 2.

On 19 October, the brothers were behind bars, held on a charge of murder. Alexander had arrived with a case of typhoid fever, and this killed him on 30 November. Alexander was on trial on December 20, when evidence showed that Pringamurra’s shoulder blade had been broken. The evidence listed the wounds on both the dead and the living, and no witnesses were called for the defence. The prosecutor summed up:

It might be argued that the charge could be reduced to one of manslaughter had the deed been done under sudden and great provocation, but when such deliberate and barbaric violence sufficient to cause death had been proved he could not see how that would be possible.
— The West Australian 22 December 1897, 3.

As there were no witnesses for the defence, there will be no recounting here of the weasel words added in defence, but sadly, they had an effect. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. Anderson had eluded the noose, but he still had an incandescent Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Onslow, to descant on his case:

Ernest William Anderson, the jury have taken a very lenient view of your case. Nobody who has heard the evidence given in this case can have a shadow of a doubt in his mind about the crime in question. Your crime is nothing but a deliberate, brutal, base and cruel murder of a man and two women, and an inhuman flogging of mere girls besides. However, the jury have done what they have in law a right to do, and it remains only for me to pass sentence upon you. That sentence is the most severe I am able to give-you are sentenced to penal servitude for life.
— The West Australian, 22 December 1897, 3.

On 10 February 1903, Anderson was allowed out on a ‘ticket of leave’ arrangement. As they say about policemen, there’s never a touch of typhoid fever around when you need it, and if that comment seems harsh, Onslow would have agreed with me, given the way he weighed in again the very next day after sentencing the surviving Anderson, at the start of another trial:

But I cannot forget that only 18 months ago I myself tried a case at Geraldton when a man named Thompson was charged with flogging a native to death. The circumstances of the case were equally revolting to that of the Andersons, the great difference being that in Thompson’s case one man instead of three was flogged, and there was also no inhuman beating of females.
— The West Australian, 24 December 1897, 6.

This reference pleased me, because while I had seen and been chasing references to “Thompson”, the name is common, so the details had eluded me, but that one word, “Geraldton”, gave me a way in. The case went to court in July 1896, when Ernest Waugh, George Thompson and William Purtill flogged ‘Micky’, an Aboriginal described as “a fighting man” who took no nonsense from white men, giving as good as he got. He was overpowered by the three, and chained to a verandah post before Thompson and Waugh whipped him.

The next piece of evidence should serve to quell any doubts about whether or not the rank smell of slavery in the air at that time.

James Aitken, affirmed in the Scotch method, said: — I am a Justice of the Peace, as well as a squatter and merchant, and know the accused, who bear a good character. I have never heard of any complaints about them. I have 65 natives in my employ. Occasionally I find it necessary to punish them in order to maintain discipline.

His Honor: What do you mean by punishing them?

Mr. Aitken: By thrashing them.

His Honor. — With what?

Witness: — With a piece of leather trace. I have heard what Micky did to Waugh, and I certainly say he deserved punishing for what he did.

His Honor: You are a magistrate of the peace. What do you suppose they are appointed for? Do you think they are appointed for the purpose of illegally punishing natives? Let me urge you to seriously consider the position you have placed yourself in in giving your opinion that it is right and proper to take into your own hands the duty of punishing natives. I am quite shocked to hear a Justice of the Peace express himself in this way.

Mr. Aitken: I am quite prepared to resign my Commission at any time. We have to tell the truth in a Court of law.
— Geraldton Advertiser, 10 July 1896, 3.

All three were found not guilty. The papers of the later 1890s always seem to link the names Anderson, Thompson and Brockman. We need just one more look, though, to seal the case for the prosecution, but the better informed papers also add the name De Pledge, so one more for luck. Interestingly, like Mr Aitken, De Pledge and Brockman were also magistrates. The prosecution rests.

George Julius Brockman, of Minilya station, was charged in February 1899 with ill-treating an aboriginal named Cooardie. The treatment involved placing Cooardie in stocks for an afternoon and night without food, then kicking him on the head, and flogging him.

The evidence came from the complainant, two other natives, and a Japanese, employed by the defendant as a cook. Cooardie’s story, largely corroborated by his witnesses, was that he was put in the stocks one afternoon and was kept there, in a fowl house, all through the night.

Cooardie escaped the fowl house, but not the stocks, and when Brockman discovered him, he was kicked about the face, and bled from a wound. He was returned to the fowl house and in the morning, with the stocks still on his legs, he was flogged with a whip made of strips of bullock hide. His offence, Cooardie said, was that he had taken a native woman named Maggie, with whom, he said, the defendant had intimate relations. Two natives, Jackie and Billie corroborated the complainant’s evidence. The Japanese cook, Cawabila, saw the complainant in the stocks, and saw him beaten by the defendant with a bullock hide whip. He did not witness the kicking, but when he entered the fowl-house blood was flowing from a wound on Cooardie’s face.

Brockman gave evidence on his own behalf, and his version differed. Yes, he had put Cooardie in the stocks, but could not have kicked him as he had no boots on. The cook, on the other hand, said the boots were on.

Brockman continued. He punished Cooardie, not in connection with the woman Maggie, but because he had attempted to assault an old blind woman. In cross-examination, he admitted telling Corporal Turner that the thrashing was administered because Cooardie had stolen a pair of boots from a contractor named Hough, and that he had made no mention of the old woman.

The contractor Hough gave evidence that during the five years he had worked for Brockman, he had never known him to ill-treat a native. The defendant had admitted enough ill-treatment to sustain the charge, and the Bench, consisting of the Resident Magistrate and three Justices of the Peace, fined the accused £5, ordered him to pay costs to the amount of £9 8s., and cancelled Cooardie’s indentures.

Brockman was a J. P., so he accepted his loss, and then took his seat on the bench, to hear a charge against a Japanese man of supplying liquor to an Aboriginal! That brings us to another J.P., Thomas De Pledge, who along with his employee, Reginald Orkney, was charged with assaulting aboriginal natives, a man and a woman, who were indentured to them. Remembering Brockman’s ‘Maggie’, the man De Pledge had flogged said that it was because he had taken away ‘his woman’. This whole saga begins to read like 19th century USA, with concupiscence in the slave quarters.


Bridges and voices

 As I emerged from a period of intense work on not one, but two books on Australian history, I found a battle going on around me about something that should be a slam dunk 'yes' vote: the Voice to Parliament.

I mentioned this to a colleague volunteer on North Head (we both do land care work), and she said the Voice referendum was just like having a referendum on whether or not to have a Sydney Harbour Bridge: a vote in favour would have enabled planning and design to go ahead, but it would say nothing about the design. It was just do we want a bridge or not?

Just as we would leave the next step to the engineers, lawyers and politicians would be the people best qualified to make the Voice work. Rabbiting on about "Oooh, we might get sued" is really saying "We are such numpties. any legislation we design will be like a dunny made of balsa wood." It is, if I may use the vernacular, bollocks.

I ducked back into history for a bit at that point. Did you know that the bridge was foretold in 1789? The sage words came from Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather, who had a famous link with Sydney.

When Governor Phillip sent some Sydney clay back to London in 1789, Josiah Wedgwood created a medallion depicting Sydney Cove. An engraving of this appeared in Phillip’s The Voyage to Botany Bay along with a verse by Erasmus Darwin called Visit of Hope to Sydney Cove. Here, we see the engraving from the book. 

Now here is a portion of Erasmus' appalling version of poetry, and if you squint slantendicularly at it, you may even be able to detect the Harbour Bridge and even Manly ferries in the text:

There the proud arch, colossus-like, bestride
Yon glittering streams, and bound the chasing tide;
Embellished villas crown the landscape-scene,
Farms wave with gold, and orchards blush between.
There shall tall spires, and dome-capped towers ascend,
And piers and quays their massy structures blend;
While with each breeze approaching vessels glide,
And northern treasures dance on every tide!”

In 1815, Governor Lachlan Macquarie’s architect, Francis Greenway, suggested building a bridge from the south shore to the north shore of Sydney Harbour, but there was no real need for a bridge then. Later, when all the good farmland at Parramatta had been taken up, a few people discovered that the sandstone ridges running north had small caps of shale that made the soil good enough for market gardens, and so settlements developed along what is now the North Shore railway line.

That line opened in 1890. As soon as it did, people began building houses along it. After 1893, they could catch a train to Milsons Point and cross the harbour by steam ferry. People began talking about having a harbour crossing. Here is Benjamin Crispin Simpson's design: the caption is a link to the SLNSW original.

State Library of NSW.


In 1900, a group of politicians tried to get an agreement to a proposal that the Duke of York would lay the foundation stone for a harbour crossing while he was visiting Sydney for the inauguration of Federation in 1901, but the proposal failed to get the nod.

The talk in Sydney in 1900 was mainly about a railway bridge, high enough so that ships could go underneath it. A plan was in place by 1911, and John Bradfield was appointed chief engineer of the project in 1912. By 1916, his design was ready, but it was the middle of the Great War, so the work was delayed.

From 1900 on, motor cars, motor lorries and motor omnibuses had all become important forms of transport, as had trams. It was decided that the new bridge needed two train lines, two tram lines, and as many lanes for road traffic as possible. In the end, Bradfield allowed for what then seemed like the huge number of six traffic lanes!

Building took from 1923 to 1932, when the Bridge opened, and there was never a referendum, because everybody knew we needed a bridge, just as we need the Voice to allow us to stand among the rare decent nations of the world.

My next post will be a small excerpt from what I am pitching under the title Involuntary Belonging, a close look at indentured and enforced servitude in Australia (and even a few cases of slavery in Australia). 

If you don't think we need the Voice, that post may make you think again, as will this image, taken from the Sydney Morning Herald in 1852: