ESTADO INICIAL DEL PROCESO

A further interesting perspective is given by Russian visitors. Sorell was praised by two sea captains following a visit to the Derwent by the Russian frigate Kreiser and the sloop Ladoga in 1823. The Russian flag had not been seen before at Hobart Town, and the ships provided a welcome novelty. According to the captains, Sorell allowed the crews to rest, take on provisions, water and coal, and at his suggestion the Ladoga was taken upriver to be beached for easy caulking and inspection.93 In reporting the arrival of the Russians ‘last from Rio Janeiro and bound upon

Discovery’,94 Sorell told Bathurst that he would ‘not fail to show them all the attention and hospitality’ in his power.95 As well as other functions and invitations to dinner from settlers, Sorell had the officers to dinner and he organized a three day expedition on horseback for them.96

PRO Reel 250, CO 280/33 pp. 166-302 Abbott to Colonial-Secretary Burnett, 21 May 1829 Sub- Enclosure No. 2 in Arthur to Goderich Despatch No. 7, 21 January 1832.

93

G. Barratt, The Russian Navy and Australia to 1825: The Days Before Suspicion. (Melbourne, 1979), p.80. See also pp.78-80, the 36-gun frigate Kreiser commanded by Mikhail Lazarev on his 3rd Pacific voyage and the sloop Ladoga commanded by his younger brother Andrei were in port at Hobart Town from 30 May 1823 until 21 June 1823.

94

A.P. Lazarev, Circumnavigation of the sloop Ladoga SPB, 1832, p.62 and Zavalishin, Australia and Polynesia, no. 23 cited H Govor, ‘Tasmania through Russian eyes (Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries)’ Tasmanian Historical Research Association Papers and Proceedings Volume 37 No. 4 (December 1990), pp.151-3.

95

AB694/TA35/13 (Bonwick Transcript 13) p.6140 Sorell to Bathurst, 30 May 1823. 96

Barratt, The Russian Navy and Australia to 1825, pp.78-80. See further Glynn Barratt, ‘Russian Naval Sources for the History of Colonial Australia to 1825’, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society Volume 67 Part 2 (September 1981), pp.159-75.

Sorell’s popularity amongst the settlers endured strongly into the rule of his successor, and undoubtedly this was partly responsible for Arthur’s ‘unpopularity’ with the same people, though the degree to which this was so has been disputed by historians. W.D. Forsyth gives the reason for Arthur’s unpopularity as being ‘partly a consequence of his efficient administration’, that the ‘difficulty of access that resulted from his industriously regulated habits offended many who had been accustomed to converse at odd moments with his affable predecessor’.97 On the other hand, Lloyd Robson felt that Arthur, as the ‘most powerful, skilful and ruthless figure in the colony’, was hated with an intensity of ‘which only the neurotic and grasping settlers of Van Diemen’s Land were capable’.98 According to Arthur, it was his belief that a party styling themselves ‘Colonel Sorell’s friends’ had formed into a band of opposition even before he landed in the colony. He also cited what he referred to as another example in ‘their preconcerted system’, in which the merits of Sorell formed prominent features in the ‘weekly effusions of Mr. Murray’s Paper’.99 Robert Lathrop Murray was editor of the Hobart Town Gazette between 8 July 1825 and 12 August 1825, after which, he was editor of the Colonial Times.100

WD Forsyth, Governor Arthur’s Convict System. Van Diemen’s Land 1824-36. A Study in Colonization (Sydney, 1970),, p.5.

98

Robson, A History of Tasmania Volume I, p.137. 99

Historical Records of Australia. Series III. Despatches and Papers relating to the settlement of the states. Volume vi. Tasmania. April-December 1827. West Australia March 1826-January 1830. Northern territory August 1824-December 1829. (Sydney, 1823), p.240 Arthur to Hay, 23 September 1827. D. Pike (General editor), Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 2 1788-1850 I-Z

(Carlton, 1967), pp. 21-2. 100

E. Morris Miller, Pressmen and Governors: Australian Editors and Writers in Early Tasmania.

As Van Diemen’s Land was under the administrative control of the Governor-in- Chief, Melville thought that it could be said that Sorell was eased of many very unpleasant duties, and that it was Macquarie (and presumably also Brisbane his successor) who occasionally had to put in force unpopular yet necessary measures. This may have been so in matters of control of land and convicts. There were some people, continued Melville, who said had Sorell been a ruler of an independent colony, he would not have been as popular.101 In 1825 Van Diemen’s Land became a separate colony, and this, while bringing the privileges of self-government, also increased Arthur’s authority.

If Sorell did benefit from contemporary comparisons with Arthur, he was also fortunate in gaining from comparisons with his predecessor Davey, and from the time of Sorell’s appointment Macquarie showed a favouritism towards him to the detriment of Davey and his achievements. The Van Diemen’s Land residents showered Macquarie with praise and treated him with respect during his nine-week visit to the colony between April and June 1821. He reported the changes since his previous visit as ‘truly astonishing’, and to a great degree the changes were

attributable to the ‘wise and energetic measures’ adopted by Sorell.102 Blind to his own comparative neglect of the colony, he told how it had been his aim to benefit the subordinate settlements by every means in his power, and he credited Sorell with every improvement in the dependency since 1811. The friendship seemed mutual, though Sorell apparently wished to maintain Macquarie’s approval, as he allowed

nine year old Edmund Sorell to travel to Sydney with Macquarie when he returned on 30 June 1821, to attend school.103 Edmund was the first born son of Sorell and Mrs Kent. This information is gained from a despatch Arthur sent to John G.S. Lefevre Esquire at the Colonial Office in 1835.104 Interestingly, also in 1821, Macquarie granted ‘a reserve’ of land to nine year old Edmund just ten days before Macquarie departed from Hobart Town.105 Unfortunately Edmund did not have the opportunity of benefiting from the land, as he died in London when twelve years old. More details will be found in Appendix A, Figure 3.

The following year, Mrs Kent and Sorell named their next born son Lachlan Macquarie Sorell. Macquarie’s liking for Sorell did not appear to change during Sorell’s administration, even once the news of Sorell’s relationship with Mrs Kent became public. This was despite the fact that Macquarie had previously been critical of similar situations; because at times he had taken steps to prevent cohabitation of unmarried couples as he saw de-facto relationships as depriving women and their illegitimate children of their rightful share of inheritance once a partner died.106 In Macquarie’s journal of his 1821 tour, he was discreetly silent about Mrs Kent.

HRA I, ix p.500 Macquarie to Bathurst, 17 July 1821. 103

In 1821-2 Edmund Sorell attended a school for ‘upper classes of youth’ at Rev. Thos. Reddall’s academy at Meehan’s Castle New South Wales, under Macquarie’s patronage with Macquarie’s son Lachlan. Edmund was aged between 8 and 10 years old. Rev. Reddall visited Hobart Town August and September 1820, see Macquarie, Journal of his Tours, pp.198, 261 n65; M.H. Ellis, Lachlan Macquarie: his life, adventures, and times (Sydney, 1970), p.505; Nicholls (ed.), The Diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood p.377. Edmund Sorell and Lachlan Macquarie junior arrived at school on 2 August 1821 and were the first of Reddall’s ‘anticipated ten pupils’ see J Ritchie, Lachlan Macquarie: A Biography (Carlton, 1986),p.181.

104

AOT GO 33/19 pp.451-6 Arthur to Lefevre, 23 March 1835. 105

CSO 1/783/16700 lists 1000 acres granted to Edmund William Sorell on 12 June 1821 in the district of Macquarie.

Macquarie, his wife, and son Lachlan did not stay at Government House, instead they had lodgings at Thomas Birch’s in Macquarie Street.107 Unfortunately Knopwood’s diary is not available for 1821 to gauge his thoughts on Macquarie’s visit.

Fortunately for the historian, Knopwood displayed no reluctance in mentioning Mrs Kent. Five days after Sorell’s arrival in the colony, Knopwood recorded that ‘the new Lieut. Govnr and his lady attended D.V. Service’.108 The news of the Kent suit against Sorell and copies of TheLondon Times of 7 July 1817 reached Van Diemen’s Land, and presumably Knopwood, by October 1817, but his form of reference did not alter, and he readily accepted the whole family. His diary entries which referred to Mrs Kent started as ‘Mrs S’, and soon became ‘Mrs. Sorell and children’.109 His form of reference to the lady as ‘Mrs Sorell’ was established in his diary by May 1818. There was an obvious friendship between Knopwood and the Sorell family, as they were frequent visitors at each other’s homes. Mrs Kent, who was ‘much

delighted’ with Robert Knopwood’s garden, often accepted fruit and garden produce from him, and on occasions delivered oranges for Knopwood and his motherless

C Liston, ‘Colonial Society’, in J. Broadbent and J. Hughes, The Age of Macquarie (Carlton, 1992), p.24.

107

L.S. Bethell, The Valley of the Derwent (Hobart, 1958), p.24 ‘Macquarie House’, the colony’s finest brick house built in 1816 fronted Collins, Harrington and Macquarie Sts, Pike ( General editor),

ADB Volume 1, p.104. 108

Nicholls (ed.), The Diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood, 13 April 1817, p.253. 109

Nicholls (ed.), The Diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood, p.268, 12 December 1817, p.268; 20 February 1818, p.274.

ward Betsy Mack, and Sorell and Mrs Kent maintained a continuing concern for the health of Knopwood and Betsy.110 Sorell’s actions illustrate both his and Mrs Kent’s

Some examples: 29 February 1818, p.274; 16 September 1819, p.313; 2 August 1820, p.335; 3 July 1823, p.393.

interest and concern for the colonists, therefore furthering his approval amongst the settlers, which in turn encouraged the settlers motivation to improve themselves, thus leading to colonial expansion.

CHAPTER 6