(No, not the Canadian one.)
I consider myself something of an expert of the failed Victoria Settlement/Port Victoria/Port Essington (a beloved child has many names, a hated one even more) venture that took place in Cobourg Peninsula in North Australia between 1838 and 1849. After being whipped into attempting a settlement in northern Australia by Undersecretary John Barrow and businessman George Windsor Earl, the Admiralty sent a few ships north from Sydney, with a detachment of Royal Marines, and set up shop -- this being after two previous attempts had failed.
The typhoon that demolished the buildings in 1839 was a setback, but I wouldn't characterize it as something the place could not have recovered from. Instead I'd put more weight on the fact the settlement didn't have the manpower it desperately needed. Contrary to Earl's suggestions, no manpower could be acquired from the Indonesian archipelago, and the colony didn't even have convict labourers until 1844 -- and even then for a period of only four months. Add to that John Russell's non-approval of a local Wakefield scheme in 1840, and the place was practically strapped for manpower from the start. Malaria was also a massive obstacle, and I don't know if there is really anything one could do about that.
However, the settlement did enjoy peaceful relations with the local Aborigines -- only one Aborigine died in the hands of the British over the 11-year period. Also, from what I could gather, it did also do at least some successful trade with the Bugis fishermen that had been cited as a reason to establish the place to begin with.
Given all this, does anyone have any ideas whether or not Port Essington (or whatever it might have in time been named) could have been viable, had some of the obstacles not been there? Of course we can also speculate on an entirely different successful north Australian settlement pre-Darwin if not.
I consider myself something of an expert of the failed Victoria Settlement/Port Victoria/Port Essington (a beloved child has many names, a hated one even more) venture that took place in Cobourg Peninsula in North Australia between 1838 and 1849. After being whipped into attempting a settlement in northern Australia by Undersecretary John Barrow and businessman George Windsor Earl, the Admiralty sent a few ships north from Sydney, with a detachment of Royal Marines, and set up shop -- this being after two previous attempts had failed.
The typhoon that demolished the buildings in 1839 was a setback, but I wouldn't characterize it as something the place could not have recovered from. Instead I'd put more weight on the fact the settlement didn't have the manpower it desperately needed. Contrary to Earl's suggestions, no manpower could be acquired from the Indonesian archipelago, and the colony didn't even have convict labourers until 1844 -- and even then for a period of only four months. Add to that John Russell's non-approval of a local Wakefield scheme in 1840, and the place was practically strapped for manpower from the start. Malaria was also a massive obstacle, and I don't know if there is really anything one could do about that.
However, the settlement did enjoy peaceful relations with the local Aborigines -- only one Aborigine died in the hands of the British over the 11-year period. Also, from what I could gather, it did also do at least some successful trade with the Bugis fishermen that had been cited as a reason to establish the place to begin with.
Given all this, does anyone have any ideas whether or not Port Essington (or whatever it might have in time been named) could have been viable, had some of the obstacles not been there? Of course we can also speculate on an entirely different successful north Australian settlement pre-Darwin if not.