Missing friends

 

A Legros - gravure : la solitude, No Restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons

In March 1921, my distant cousin Henry Hill published two consecutive notices in the Worker asking for information concerning the whereabouts of his half-brother Fred Richards of Ayr Queensland.

Will FRED. RICHARDS, who is a beneficiary in his late grandfather's estate, who was last heard of at Winton, previously of Ayr, Queensland, formerly of Yarra Junction, Victoria, or anyone knowing his whereabouts, kindly communicate with H. Hill, Jarvisfield, Ayr. (1)

 Their Grandfather who had been a successful miller based in Yarra Junction, Victoria, had recently died and Fred was a beneficiary. (2) I don’t want to speak ill of Fred, but he was what Australians might be refer to as a ‘real character’— mercurial, hard to pin down. His family are still trying to figure out what happened to him!

The problem of locating ‘missing friends’ in the Australian colonies was recognised in an editorial published in the Queenslander in 1877. Drawing attention to the hundreds of published enquiries every year in the colony of Queensland alone, it called for more to be done about the problem. While recognising that a certain percentage of cases were likely ‘deliberate’, the problem was mostly attributed to the premature deaths of men moving constantly to follow work. The author suggested a remedy could be a government gazette that would publish a comprehensive annual list of deaths in the colony. (3) However, even by 1926, the phenomenon of ‘missing friends’ or relations was still such a numerous problem that New South Wales broadcasters would only publish inquiries if they had been verified by the local police. (4)

Some notices were clearly heartfelt pleas:

M'Carthy.—M'Carthy (John) would like to hear of his brother Jeremiah, who left Cork forty years ago; last heard of in Australia. (5)

Lawrence (Arthur Richard) went to New Zealand in 1907, and was last heard of at Dunedin. Sister asks. Father ill. (6)

Some notices even referred to entire family groups:

William Barton, care of John Shanahan 6 Sir Harry's Mall, Limerick, writes to the "Catholic Press" inquiring after a family named Barton, who left Limerick in 1859, having been sent for by Mrs. Coolagan or Counahan, whose husband was in the timber business. (7)

Information— to be addressed care of "Reynolds's Newspaper," London— is asked for in connection with the following: — Daniel Donovan and his four sons, who left London 38 years ago. Last heard of in Toowoomba, Australia. His sister, Mary Hayes, inquires. (8)

John Allan, care of W. Jones, 10 William St. Leederville, Perth, would like to know the whereabouts of the Waugh family who arrived in this State from Newcastle, England, on April 16, 1914. They are supposed to be in the York district. (9)

Some of these people had been silent for decades. It is possible that the sudden desire for connection may have often been related to the dispersal of estates.

BRUCE.—If the children of Alfred Bruce (sometimes known as Alfred William Bruce and also Alfred John Bruce) will communicate with the Union

Trustee Company of Australia Ltd., 400 Queen Street, Brisbane, they will learn something to their advantage. Alfred Bruce died in Brisbane in March, 1928, but for several years previously was interested in a sugarcane farm, at Carmila, near Mackay, Queensland. It is believed he came from Victoria in 1913. Information as to the whereabouts of his children or other relatives is sought. (10)

And there are occasional indications that there were genuine fears that some may have fallen victim to misadventure:

Doidge (William) left Bristol in 1854; last heard of from gold diggings at Goulburn, Australia, in 1857. Sisters Grace, Mary Ann, and Martha seek him. (11)

William Hale Talintyre, 39, grocer, possessing means, who, while travelling for the benefit of his health, two years and a half ago, reached Sydney, and has not been heard of since. Talintyre was staying at one of the leading city hotels, which he left on the morning of April 15, 1900, after asking whether a person could have a good swim at Manly. His luggage remained at the hotel, and nothing whatever has since been heard of his movements. (12)

Some are descriptively very vivid and read more like police circulars:

Joseph A. Marshall, native of Ireland, age 40 years, a nurseryman, farm labourer, or milk hand, height 6ft. 1in., stout stooping build, light brown hair, dark eyebrows, straight forehead, eyes believed to be blue, large mouth, thick lips, good teeth, short thick fingers, large hands, round chin, large ears, round smiling face, very fair, reddish thick moustache, friendly in manner, speaks rather loudly, has the appearance of a new chum, walks with a long crouching stride, very round shouldered, head down, large feet, dressed in a large check Irish frieze suit, square cut coat. (13)

And some are just simply amusing:

Chas. Edward Martyn or Edward Martin, 44 years of age, 5 feet 8J inches high, dark hair now grey when not dyed golden red or black, grey-green eyes, thick loose underlip, may be covered with dyed moustache; wears No. 10 boots; fairly well educated and informed generally; plays billiards, cards, &c., and will not work if possible to avoid it. Inquiry at the instance of his wife, Emily Martyn, Montrose, Sideup, Kent, England.—I.R., 1907-163. (14)

Augustus Caesar—described, appropriately enough, as having a Roman nose—who left Brisbane five years ago for West Australia. (15)

There must have of course been a percentage that had no intention of being located. With the vast improvements in communication evident from the middle of the Twentieth Century such public measures became less common. As in regards to cousin Fred Richards, I personally wonder though how many of these other historical ‘missing friends’ cases were ever finally resolved?

 

  -  Colin Mallett, 15 September 2023.

Endnotes

(1) Worker, 24 March 1921, p 15, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71054342  & 31 March 1921, p 13, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71053630 , both accessed 8 September 2023.

(2) Will of William RICHARDS, 1 February 1921, Public Record Office of Victoria, Wills, 7591/P0002, 171/282.

(3) Queenslander, 6 October 1877, p 17, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article19762065 accessed 8 September 2023.

(4) Wellington Times, 7 October 1926, p 9, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article137386472 accessed 8 September 2023.

(5) Evening News, 2 January 1895, p 7, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article108065566 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(6) Observer, 13 November 1909, p 43, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article168281941 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(7) Catholic Press, 21 August 1913, p 20, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article105155782 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(8) Freeman’s Journal, 20 July 1901, p 18, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article111084148 accessed 8 September 2023.

(9) Eastern Districts Chronicle, 18 June 1915, p 4, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article148576582 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(10) Daily Mercury, 1 February 1939, p 11, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article168812645 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(11) Evening News, 2 January 1895, p 7, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article108065566 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(12) Evening News, 27 October 1902, p 7, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article114504767 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(13) Eastern Districts Chronicle, 30 September 1910, p 4, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article148565909 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(14) New South Wales Police Gazette and Weekly Record of Crime, 4 September 1907, p 315, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article251635535 , accessed 8 September 2023.

(15) Evening News, 27 October 1902, p 7, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article114504767 , accessed 8 September 2023.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Catholic Press (Sydney)

Daily Mercury (Mackay)

Eastern Districts Chronicle (York)

Evening News (Sydney)

Freeman's Journal (Sydney)

New South Wales Police Gazette and Weekly Record of Crime (Sydney)

Queenslander (Brisbane)

Wellington Times (New South Wales)

Worker (Brisbane)

North and south

On Friday 13 February 1959, a gilded hatchet was buried in the pavement outside the entrance to the Launceston Hotel. The ceremony was presided over by the two respective Town Clerks of the cities of Launceston and Hobart. This event coincided with a joint conference of Launceston and Hobart Aldermen and associated officials being held on that day at the Town Hall. The local Lions club had organized the event to heal the rivalry between the two cities of Hobart and Launceston. The ritual was based on an indigenous American ceremony which was used to cease hostilities. A metal plaque was placed over the spot although in the succeeding decades it has since disappeared or been covered over. (1)  

So, what are the origins, extent and driving factors of the historic rivalry between the two cities of Launceston and Hobart? Is this rivalry limited to Launceston and Hobart or is it an aspect of a more general animosity between the Northern and Southern Tasmania?

George Frankland's map of Van Diemen's Land, Tasmania Archive and Heritage Office Commons, No restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons

In a 2011 Examiner article on the issue of the North South rivalry, Julian Burgess accurately attributed the rift to having been set during that early formative period but having been kept alive for political and commercial reasons. (2) For the origins of this North/South rivalry in Tasmania, we likely need to first examine the process of settlement. Between 1803 and 1804, three settlement parties were dispatched from Sydney to Van Diemen’s Land. The first two were established on the Derwent River (Risdon Cove and Sullivan’s Cove) and the third at what had been christened Port Dalrymple in the North. (3) The rivalry may have its roots in fact in an antagonism between Lt. Col. David Collins and Lt. Col. William Paterson, who found themselves in respective charge of the North and South bastions of Empire. Governor King had originally named Paterson as Lt. Governor of the Port Dalrymple settlement at a time when Collins was presiding over the aborted first Port Phillip settlement on the other side of Bass Strait (within the boundaries of what later became the colony of Victoria). When Collins shifted his colony to the Derwent, he claimed control over the entire island and Paterson objected. To defuse the tension, King opted to partition the island. (4) The island was officially bisected at the 42nd parallel on 24 September 1804. The island then hosted two administrations representing the counties of Buckinghamshire in the South and Cornwall in the North. (5) These administrations were still officially part of the colony of New South Wales and reported independently to the Governor in Sydney. By the time the two were united under one Hobart based administration in 1813, Launceston had become accustomed to its independence. (6) Indeed, in June of that year both Hobart Town and Port Dalrymple were both officially named free ports for imported goods—it was no longer necessary then for ships to call to Sydney first and have their merchandise assessed and fees processed there. (7) 

In February 1807 a young officer in the New South Wales corps, Thomas Laycock, led a small party from famine ridden settlement of Port Dalrymple to the Derwent settlement to request supplies but on arrival, his request was denied. (8) The incident was recorded in the 11 February entry of the diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood. To be fair this was not due to any rivalry but rather because the Hobart colony was itself suffering from shortages. The diary entries around this time also reflect increasing hostilities between the colonists and the natives—perhaps as a result of having to hunt deeper inland for supplies to compensate for the lack of stores. (9) Whatever rivalry between the settlements that may have existed at the time clearly operated only on an administrative level and not a popular one. Isolation and peril can actually be a unifying force and the early history of both settlements were that of collective struggle; and after all, on entering Port Jackson in January 1788 just after Captain Phillip had planted the British flag, French explorer and navigator Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse even wrote: ‘Europeans are all fellow-countrymen at such a distance from home’! (10)

The first actual rumblings of open conflict between North and South may have involved some territoriality with respect to their respective banking institutions. The Cornwall Bank was established in Launceston in 1828 but by 1832 it was in trouble. It proved necessary for the Bank of Van Diemen’s Land - formed and based in Hobart - to come to its aid. Hobart’s bank had opened a branch in Launceston during 1830 on the site of the future Brisbane Hotel. In 1834 they offered to come to the Cornwall’s aid again if they abandoned their business. However, they proved to have insufficient capital necessary for the move and had to close themselves. Competition between Hobart and Launceston based banking institutions remained fierce for decades to come. (11)

 

Bank of Van Diemen's Land, 1834, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The rivalry that manifested itself in the early press reflected a healthy sense of competition between the two settlements. In May 1835 the Cornwall Chronicle perhaps playfully (?) reported that the capital of the colony was to be moved to Launceston. (12) In 1849 when describing the enthusiastic response by the port of Hobart in responding to the Californian gold rush, an article in the same paper posed the question: ‘What are the Launcestonians doing in this business?’ (13) The fact that this comment was made in a Launceston paper hints at awareness of a friendly rivalry by this time. Similarly, the question was asked in the Launceston local Daily Telegraph in 1911 as to why the drugs provided more expensive at the Launceston Friendly Societies dispensary than at its Hobart counterpart. (14) The construction of the Queen Victoria Clock Tower at Hobart in 1906 appears to have evoked an envious response from Launceston. By 1909 an arguably more impressive clock tower had been installed, a correspondent for the Mercury wryly noting that ‘the big bell is so big that the Hobart gong could easily be hidden away inside it.’ (15) Even by the end of the century there was little evidence of mainstream animosity as one observer of the state in 1897 noted that: ‘Never a hard word did I hear from the north end of the island about the south end, and my respect for the Tasmanians rose considerably.’ (16) During the Great Depression there was a noted ‘friendly rivalry’ between the Rotary clubs in the North and South in their efforts to raise money for the ‘spend for employment campaign’; it’s likely this was being played up in the media to create an atmosphere of healthy competition. (17) All these examples leave one with the distinct impression that the rivalry that exists between the two main cities of Tasmania on a mainstream level is mostly a friendly one that invites as much self-criticism on both sides and little actual negativity.

 

Duck Reach Power Station, Launceston, Tasmania, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

It is arguable that economic neglect of the North drove the Launceston City Council (LCC) to become very independent and from its inception, its municipality was to benefit from its own brand of ‘gas and water socialism’. The municipal administration in Launceston led the way in providing infrastructure and services including sewerage, water and electricity. (18) The LCC subsequently butted heads with the new Hydro-Electric Department in 1930 over its plans to extend electricity supply to Beaconsfield in competition with its own plans. At the time the corporation had its own hydro-electric facility and the right to supply power within a six-mile radius of the town which incorporated the suburban area of Beaconsfield. Although the LCC had not seriously considered expanding its business to that area, and there were concerns over available water resources being adequate to maintain and expand supply within the boundaries of the town, the corporate body was clearly threatened by this territorial threat. However, the fact that the LCC were taken to task over this ‘selfish’ approach by the local paper reflects that the bad feeling again existed at the administrative not the popular, mainstream level. (19) This arguably began a pattern of open conflict and resentment between Northern administrative bodies and the state government that continued as the role of the state continued to expand as the century unfolded. 

To be properly understood, the rivalry between North and South (and particularly Launceston and Hobart) has to placed within the wider historical debate concerning the role of ‘the state’ in Tasmania. There was a sustained effort to reduce the state following the end of the penal era as while a strong centralized government had arguably been a necessity in the early development of the colony, it had also become synonymous with the convict system itself. (20) Subsequently Parliament resisted any wholesale expansion of executive power and the preferred arrangement was for local government to assume broad responsibilities. (21) During the Second World War there was a necessary centralisation, or recentralization, of power within the apparatus of the state which effectively re-familiarised the population of Tasmania with the practices of government regulation and intervention. (22) It is clear though that this process of centralisation further heightened distrust between North and South, at least on an official level. From the achievement of self-government in 1856, ‘the state’ had always been regarded as a Hobart based and Hobart-centric apparatus often favouring the interests of the South at the expense of the North. Therefore, when statutory bodies such as the LCC or the Launceston Marine Board (LMB) continued to resist government policy post-war, it’s likely that they genuinely felt that they were continuing to act not in self-interest but according to the long-term needs of their constituents.

 

Bill Thompson, former Tasmanian convict, John Watt Beattie, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The main source of resentment on the part of Launceston towards Hobart then appears to relate to the advantages the later has as the seat of government. Even before the return of centralisation, many state policies were regarded by the inhabitants of Launceston (and arguably the North in general) as arbitrary, heavy-handed, and unfair. One early example was the response to the removal of male invalids from the Launceston invalid depot to Hobart in 1894 which was seen as cruel (despite claims that the decision wasn’t being made for monetary benefit but rather because the residents had been somewhat neglected!). (23) When special railway rates charged on cargo delivered at Launceston were declared by the local press as an ‘injustice’ in 1894 it was because they were seen as a means to ‘benefit one portion of the colony at the expense of the other’. (24) A decision to adopt a policy recommended by the Chamber of Commerce to concentrate all shipping trade in the port of Hobart led to a protest at the Launceston Town Hall in June 1919. (25) Another typical example was when in 1947 the Northern Branch of the Tasmanian Road Transport Association (meeting in Launceston of course) accused the State Government of acquiring ‘plum’ road services by underhand methods or compulsory acquisition by stealth. (26) It is likely that it is only when Launcestonians (and perhaps Northerners in general) feel themselves to be the victims of insensitive policy decisions from the direction of Hobart and in turn their civic pride is dented, that the embers of animosity among the mainstream population are fanned.

In relation to the rivalry between Launceston and Hobart, sometimes the smaller the issue, the louder the fuss. Things came to a head between the LMB and the Nomenclature Board (NB) in 1968. The NB had decided that the term Port Dalrymple should be used while the local authority preferred the term ‘Port of Launceston.’ The NB was, according to Master Warden R. A. Ferrall, ‘composed in its entirety of Hobart citizens and effectively passed a by-law making their preference official.’ The LMB did this without consulting the NB. What’s more significant is that the local paper, the Examiner, declared its support noting that it would only refer to the waters past the Tamar Heads as the Port of Launceston. The decision was well received among the Tamar Valley municipalities. (27) From a Launceston perspective then, there was an enduring view among the administrative class at least, that Launceston traditions and interests needed to be protected against the intrusive influence of the capital, no matter how trivial.

 

Locomotive belonging to Tasmanian Government Railways, 1907, Andy Dingley, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rivalries between familial cities is not a phenomenon unique to Tasmania: the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney is infamous and long predated the conflict over the question of which should be the Commonwealth’s capital at the time of Federation. (28) There is also a distinct history of administrative tension between Launceston and Devonport despite both cities being located in the North. The LMB has played a major role in these conflicts. In 1863 the proposal for a railway to link Launceston to the Northwest highlighted opposing interests and views between the Launceston and Mersey Ports. The Port of Launceston argued that it was vital that wheat be brought from the Northwest direct to Launceston for export as the trade was under threat from Port Phillip. Regardless, a proposed tram line that was to run from Latrobe to Deloraine was enabled by an Act of Parliament in 1864. The resultant line by 1871 was described as a track that ‘began nowhere and ended in the same place’. Promoters of the Launceston plan struggled through three parliaments to have their own Bill enacted. The proposal also brough the City Engineer Doyne into conflict with Government commissioners. Eventually the colonial Government intervened and implemented something similar to the original proposal to extend the Launceston and Western Railway line to Formby. Contrastingly, a major line from Launceston to Hobart was achieved without similar conflict in 1876. (29) Likewise in 1906 when the chairman of the Devonport Council H. McFie stated that all Tasmanian mail should be landed at Devonport as a result of the Tamar tides, the Master Warden R. J. Sadler labelled the suggestion as ‘outrageous’. Like many administrative controversies in Tasmania, this one could be described as it was by R. A. Ferrall as nothing more than a ‘cyclonic disturbance in a cup of water.’ (30)

In 2002 a controversy developed with the board of AFL Tasmania attempted to direct all local AFL games be played at Bellerive Oval in Hobart rather than York Park in Launceston. The Labor government had successfully attracted two AFL clubs (Hawthorn and St. Kilda) to play games in the North and South respectively. Recently re-elected Labor Premier Jim Bacon – perhaps partly with an eye towards a negative reaction in the North - declared that he no intention of bowing to the ‘Clarence based clique’. The chairman of the Board Peter Hodgman struck back at the Premier claiming that he had no right to insist that all games be played at York Park. The decision had been made even though York Park was at the time the only accredited ground for AFL games located in the state as significant funding having been diverted to upgrade it largely for that purpose and Launceston was a more central and convenient location for mainland tourists to visit to enjoy the games. (31) Hodgman was a former member of the opposition who had lost his seat in Legislative Council in 2001. (32) It is difficult to deny that there were both political and commercial agendas at play in this conflict and that North-South rivalry was being actively exploited by both sides of the political divide.

 

Tasmanian football map, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The origins of the rivalry between Launceston and Hobart can be traced back to the period of European settlement in Tasmania. While notorious, the rivalry is largely mythical and operates mostly at an administrative rather than a popular level. The media coverage of North-South tensions over the last two centuries supports this analysis and indicates that overall, there is a lack of jingoism within the mainstream population on either side of the 42nd parallel. The traditional rivalry is at its most mainstream when Northern residents (and particularly those in Launceston) feel they have been slighted or worse, ignored, by the state. In truth, the rivalry is an aspect of a wider historical tension between Northern and Southern residents and driven largely by political and commercial interests. A central factor in driving that rivalry has been the increasing centralization of the state post-war. This arguably inevitable shift during the Twentieth Century exacerbated tensions between ‘the state’ and its subordinate statutory bodies; as the reach of the state expanded, their own powers and influence contracted. Some of the resistance though is likely to have been reflective of a genuine concern on the part of those bodies for the interests of their constituents. The second driving factor has been conflicting commercial interests— originally restricted to banking interests, these expanded to include the regulation and operation of the shipping trade, the railways and later, sports tourism. Launceston has also had a sometimes-fraught relationship with rival Northern port city, Devonport, demonstrating that parochialism is a universal phenomenon and the North-South rivalry is not even unique within Tasmania.

-  Colin Mallett, 20 January 2023.

 

Endnotes

(1) John Reynolds. Launceston History of an Australian City (South Melbourne, 1969), pp. 185-6.

(2) Julian Burgess, ‘Parochialism is far from dead and buried North-South divide runs deep’ in Examiner, 23 July 2011. URL: https://www.examiner.com.au/story/432180/parochialism-is-far-from-dead-and-buried-north-south-divide-runs-deep/ accessed 16 June 2021.

(3) James Boyce, Van Diemen’s Land (Melbourne, 2009), p. 20.

(4) Evelyn Temple Emmett, Tasmanian by Road and Track (Carlton, 1952) as quoted in ‘Remarks by the Honourable Peter Underwood AC, Governor of Tasmania upon the opening of an interpretation site at the 42nd parallel, Ross Tuesday 16th October 2012’ in Speeches, Government House, Tasmania. URL: https://www.govhouse.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/speeches/42nd_parallel_commemoration.pdf accessed 16 June 2021.

(5) New South Wales, State Archives and Records, NRS 1045 – Colonial Secretary papers [SZ992], p. 109, Reel 6037. URL: https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/magazine/24-sep-1804-%E2%80%93-king-divides-van-diemen%E2%80%99s-land accessed 30 June 2021.

(6) Judith Hollingsworth, ‘North-South Relations’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/N/North-south.htm accessed 16 June 2021.

(7) Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), p. 41.

(8) G. H. Stancombe, ‘Thomas Laycock (1786-1823)’ in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (2002-21). URL: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/laycock-thomas-2340 accessed 30 June 2021.

(9) Indeed, in his entry on the 24 February 1807, Knopwood bemoans the current price of goods. Robert Knopwood, ‘The Diary of the Rev. Robert Knopwood 1805-1808 part 2’ as reproduced in Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, (UTAS eprints) pp. 72-4. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13563/1/1947-knopwood-diary.pdf accessed 21 July 2021.

(10) Shane Maloney and Chris Groz, ‘Captain Arthur Phillip and Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse’ in Encounters, The Monthly, August 2011. URL: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/august/1316152462/shane-maloney/captain-arthur-phillip-jean-fran-ois-de-galaup-comte-de-l#mtr accessed 30 June 2021.

(11) Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), p. 119. An associated consortium of the VDL Bank returned to Launceston again as the Tamar Bank based in George Street in 1835 and after being bailed out by Phillip Oakden of the Union Bank in London during 1838, survived the 1840s depression and were still operating in the 1850s. The Cornwall Bank was taken over by the Bank of Australasia in 1836 ensuring its longevity. The VDL Bank formally opened again in Launceston in 1859 but finally closed during the crash of 1891.

(12) Cornwall Chronicle, 1 May 1835 as described in Examiner, 21 November 1929, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51633152?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 30 June 2021.

(13) Cornwall Chronicle, 13 Jan 1849, p. 300. See: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/65979074?searchTerm=Gold%20California accessed 21 April 2021.

(14) Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1911, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/152368571?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 30 June 2021.

(15) Mercury, 21 August 1909, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/9991807?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(16) Sydney Stock and Station Journal, 19 January 1897, p. 4. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/120771479?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(17) Mercury, 4 July 1943, p. 6. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/24875114?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 8 September 2021.

(18) Ronald Alan Mallett, ‘ ”A model among towns?”: A study of progressivism in Launceston during the interwar period’, unpublished PhD thesis (UTAS, 2006), passim. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12488/ accessed 8 September 2021.

(19) Examiner, 24 July 1930, p. 6. URL:L https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51651125?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(20) Lloyd Robson, A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991), pp. 309-10.

(21) Wilfred Asquith Townsley, Tasmania from Colony to Statehood, 1803-1945 (Hobart, 1991), p. 179.

(22)  Lloyd Robson, A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991), p. 490.

(23) North Coast Standard, 2 June 1894, p. 3. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212612685?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(24) Tasmanian, 30 June 1894, p. 26. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/199502238?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(25) Advertiser, 5 June 1919, p. 7. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5654547?searchTerm=Launceston%20Hobart%20rivalry%20tension%20conflict accessed 25 August 2021.

(26) Examiner, 28 July 1947, p. 2. URL: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/52599059?searchTerm=Tasmanian%20State%20Government%20policy%20unfair%20bias%20North%20South%20Northern%20Southern accessed 8 September 2021.

(27) Raymond A. Ferrall, The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1953), pp. 85-6.

(28) Mel Campbell, ‘Sydney vs. Melbourne: A History’ in Crikey, 25 Jul 2019. URL: https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/07/25/melbourne-sydney-rivalry-history/ accessed 21 July 2021.

(29) Llewelyn Slingsby Bethell, The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957), pp. 138, 165-8.

(30) Raymond A. Ferrall, The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1953), pp. 31-3.

(31) Examiner 24 July 2002, pp. 1 & 9. Clarence is a municipality within the greater Hobart area.

(32) Stephen Tanner, ‘Hodgman Family’ in The Companion to Tasmanian HIstory (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/H/Hodgman%20family.htm accessed on 22 September 2021. In fact, Peter’s brother Michael who also served as both a member of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council was known as ‘the Mouth from the South’.

Bibliography 

Primary Sources:


Cornwall Chronicle

Daily Telegraph

Examiner

New South Wales, State Archives and Records, NRS 1045 – Colonial Secretary papers [SZ992], p. 109, Reel 6037. URL: https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/magazine/24-sep-1804-%E2%80%93-king-divides-van-diemen%E2%80%99s-land accessed 30 June 2021.

North Coast Standard

Sydney Stock and Station Journal

Tasmanian


Secondary Sources:


Boyce, J. Van Diemen’s Land (Melbourne, 2009).

Emmett, E. T. Tasmania by Road and Track (Carlton, 1952).

Ferrall, R. A. The Story of the Port of Launceston (Launceston, 1983).

Mallett, R. A. ‘ “A model among towns?”: A study of progressivism in Launceston during the interwar period’, unpublished PhD thesis (UTAS, 2006). URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12488/ accessed 8 September 2021.

Reynolds, J. Launceston History of an Australian City (South Melbourne, 1969).

Robson, L. L. A History of Tasmania Vol. 2: Colony and State from 1856 to the 1980s (Melbourne, 1991).

Townsley, W. A. Tasmania: from colony to statehood, 1803-1945 (Hobart, 1991).

Bethell, L. S. The Story of Port Dalrymple: Life and Work in Northern Tasmania (Hobart, 1957).

Online Resources:

Campbell, M. ‘Sydney vs. Melbourne: A History’ in Crikey, 25 Jul 2019. URL: https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/07/25/melbourne-sydney-rivalry-history/ accessed 21 July 2021

Hollingsworth, J. ‘North-South Relations’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/N/North-south.htm accessed 16 June 2021.

Knopwood, R. ‘The Diary of the Rev. Robert Knopwood 1805-1808 part 2’ as reproduced in Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, (UTAS eprints) pp. 72-4. URL: https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13563/1/1947-knopwood-diary.pdf accessed 21 July 2021.

Maloney, S. & and Groz, C. ‘Captain Arthur Phillip and Captain Jean-François de Galaup, Comte de La Pérouse’ in Encounters, The Monthly, August 2011. URL: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/august/1316152462/shane-maloney/captain-arthur-phillip-jean-fran-ois-de-galaup-comte-de-l#mtr accessed 30 June 2021.

Stancombe, G. H. ‘Thomas Laycock (1786-1823)’ in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (2002-21). URL: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/laycock-thomas-2340 accessed 30 June 2021.

Tanner, S. ‘Hodgman Family’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History (2006). URL: https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/H/Hodgman%20family.htm accessed on 22 September 2021.

Unknown Author, ‘Remarks by the Honourable Peter Underwood AC, Governor of Tasmania upon the opening of an interpretation site at the 42nd parallel’, Ross Tuesday 16th October 2012’ in Speeches, Government House, Tasmania. URL: https://www.govhouse.tas.gov.au/sites/default/files/speeches/42nd_parallel_commemoration.pdf accessed 16 June 2021.

Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, accessed 30 June 2021.

A promising start: what went wrong with Tasmanian cricket in the nineteenth century?

As throughout most of the British Empire, cricket took solid root in the Australian colonies. A total of seventy-five intercolonial matches were played on the Australian continent between 1851 and 1892. Cricket was played as early as 1825 in Van Diemen’s land, later rechristened Tasmania. The colony was also the site of the earliest first-class cricket to be played in the Australian colonies. (1) The first intrastate game between North and South was held at the geographical mid-point at Oatlands on the 20^th of April 1850. (2) When “Tasmania” defeated Victoria in Launceston in March 1854 by 8 wickets it was termed ‘the conquering match’ as each had previously won an intercolonial match on their own ground. (3) While Tasmania had begun as one of the ‘strongest cricket colonies’, it was excluded from the inaugural Sheffield Shield competition in the 1892-93 season. (4) In fact the state did not join the competition until the 1977/8 season. (5) So exactly what factors retarded the development of cricket in Tasmania during the Nineteenth Century? I have identified several potential candidates: elitism, aversion to professionalism, resistance to round arm bowling, rivalries between North and South, population and poverty. Do any of these adequately explain the stifled progress of the sport in Tasmania?

While the game of cricket was diffused across most of the British colonies, among all the territory that was once held by the British, it appears to have failed to take root in North America, specifically the United States and Canada. That was also despite evidence of early popularity in both countries and its enduring success in the Caribbean. Sociologists Jason Kaufman and Orlando Patterson have argued that the success of its diffusion was dependent on two main factors: use of the sport as a hegemonic tool and popularization by cultural entrepreneurs. (6) Additionally, is it possible that the reasons for the sport’s overall failure in North America could shed some light on its qualified success on the island state?

 

 A game of cricket by Francis Hayman 1743, British Museum, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

From its inception, cricket was both a creation and a creature of the social elite and this elitism could be managed in order to include or exclude. Kaufman and Patterson allude to the ‘hegemonic’ power of the game of cricket. The British appreciated its capacity to “discipline and civilize men”. If diffused in an inclusive manner, the game appears to have been very effective in allowing the colonized to pay ‘symbolic homage to British cultural and political hegemony’. The game could also allow those who suffered various forms of social and economic stratification to find a way above or around them. This may have been one of the reasons they in turn argue that the sport was diffused so successfully in the ‘West Indies’. While this kind of inclusive diffusion could be seen as indoctrination, it was however much more positive than its counterpart. (7) There is little evidence of this occurring in Tasmania, as the Derwent Club found it difficult to secure a permanent ground before 1843. Their first two grounds were confiscated by the government, the first to be used as a drilling ground for troops and the second was required for a road after extensive improvements had already been made. Finally, the Director General of Roads obliged and transferred the first ground to them for the 1843-4 season. (8) 

The game of cricket was undeniably very often a game used by the social elites to exclude. Its early adoption into English public education reflects its role as a socialization agency emphasizing specific values and behaviours. With the introduction of professionalism, a practice called ‘stacking’ became common, which allowed the elite and the professionals to co-exist but at the same time remain segregated in relation to everything from separate change rooms to listing on score cards. Kaufman and Patterson argue however that while exclusive elements were transplanted into the culture of the game in the Australian and New Zealand colonies, the elites themselves were limited in their capacity to insist on exclusivity in these European settlements because of both their size and isolation. The process of diffusion of the sport was still essentially top down though, although the extent to which the elites could ‘cultivate their Englishness’ through acts of exclusion were qualified. But they tried. The Melbourne Cricket Club reportedly employed a grounds man specifically to eject non-members from the club grounds. (9) The South Australian Cricket Association (SACA) in the 1870s had a policy of preventing the poor from attending games at the Adelaide Oval until intervention from parliament ensured there was facility for those who could not afford the cost of admission to attend in ‘the outer’. (10) At the same time, there appears to be little evidence that the mainstream were excluded from engaging in the sport, although they likely had little involvement in its government. (11)

The biggest controversy of the early period appears to have been acceptance of the professional player. The game had originally found popularity among the social elites in England who found they could gamble on the outcome and that inevitably led to the engagement of professionals to secure better results. (12) However, it was often thought that the game departed from being a gentlemen’s preserve when professionalism was permitted; instead it became one led by publicans, associated with various social vices. (13) Indeed, Joseph Bowden, owner of the Lamb Inn in Hobart (perhaps qualifying as one of Kaufman and Patterson’s cultural entrepreneurs?) organized one of the first cricket matches there on Easter Monday 1826 in the Domain. It involved a match between gentlemen from the Counties of Sussex and Kent against the choice of the whole island with a stake of 50 guineas! (14) Despite the clear potential of the sport on the island, Northern and Southern cricket interests remained doggedly opposed to the inclusion of professionals for decades. This was despite some of the more successful players representing the mainland colonies increasingly being drawn from the ranks of professionals. For instance, Gideon Elliott had originally played for Surrey and had migrated during the gold rushes. (15) Australian born Tom Wills played for Kent and the MCC while away in England for his education before returning and representing Victoria. (16)

One of the central negative outcomes of diffusion identified by Kaufman and Patterson is the danger of ‘status insecure first-adopters’ capturing the game for themselves, for which they credit the failure of cricket to succeed in North America. While the sport had also become popular there during the mid-Nineteenth Century, it was effectively eclipsed by the sport of baseball at the turn of the century. While the potential reasons are clearly numerous and complex, (ranging from the climate to a dislike of the slow nature of play) they explain:

Over time, the sport’s snooty image took a toll on the popularity of cricket among Americans at large, an image the elites sought to cultivate, In contrast to the robust English tradition of  “gentlemen and players”, American cricket clubs strictly forbade professionals from play, even if it meant bitter defeat at the hands of travelling English and Australian teams. (17)

The same reluctance to hire professionals was evident in Tasmania during the same period. When the Tasmanian side was totally routed by the visiting Victorians in the first intercolonial match of 1858, it was clear that the Victorian side reflected a sporting culture that prized first class play, rather than one that still viewed the game as merely a preserve for gentlemen. The contrast between the sides was evident not only in the disparity between the ratio of runs for wickets but also in the high level of maiden overs produced by the Victorian bowlers. (18) Tasmania not only lacked round arm pace bowlers but, perhaps as a consequence of not allowing them to play in the state, also lacked batsmen with the ability to play them. In contrast professional players by their nature normally had experience of many types of conditions and styles of play and it is likely that their contributions as both players and coaches may have prevented such overall poor performances as were witnessed in those matches. (19) There appears to be some level of symmetry between the decline in the competitiveness of teams in Tasmania and North America during the Nineteenth Century as a result of attitudes to professionalism.

At the time of initial settlement in Australia in the late Eighteenth Century, all bowling in the developing game of cricket was underarm. It was a very informal game involving smoking on the field. Round arm bowling became increasingly popular in England throughout the 1820s. It was originally devised by John Willes of Kent but first used to devastating effect in the local game by leading exponents William Lillywhite and James Broadbridge. The style was declared legal by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) at Lords in 1828. Colonial players and enthusiasts were able to follow the English game only by virtue of newspaper coverage. The development in the style of play was likely transmitted to the antipodes in that way.  One of the early pioneers of the style in New South Wales was Captain Edward Ward. Ward was particularly noted for his jerky style of delivery. (20) The change in the nature of the game necessitated the use of gloves and pads, however primitive. William Still in May 1834 became the first player in Australia to make use of these items, presumably in order to deal with the increasing pace of the ball as a result of round-arm bowling. (21) 

The game developed concurrently in Van Diemen’s Land. The very first game of cricket in Tasmania may have been played at Christmas in 1814 as The Reverend Robert Knopwood makes a reference to it in his famous diary. (22) The Hobart Town Cricket Club was inaugurated on 27 October 1832. Subsequently the Launceston Cricket Club which survives to this day was formed in 1843 and several other regional clubs also began to form at this time including Sorell, Richmond and New Norfolk. (23) However, before the 1850s, the round-arm style bowling was simply not part of the game in Van Diemen’s Land. The accepted style in Van Diemen’s Land in this period remained ‘lob bowling’ which involved tossing the ball high in an attempt to beat the batsman with an arc that could hit the stumps. This style of bowling was no longer used anywhere else in the cricketing world. (24)

It was only a matter of time before the new style of play crossed the strait. Melbourne was settled by pioneers from Tasmania between 1834-5. A match between ‘Port Phillip’ and a Tasmanian team was proposed and organized in Launceston in 1850 and Governor Denison granted the Launceston club land near the racecourse for the purpose. Somewhat reluctantly, the Hobart club dispatched players to help fill out the local side. However, due to an administrative bungle the Victorians did not arrive when expected in June 1850. (25) The game was reorganized and took place between 11-12 February 1851. There is some indication that the locals were unprepared for the pace of round-arm bowling as there were no runs scored in their first innings for almost four overs! (26) This was Australia’s initial first-class match and the local team won by 3 wickets. A rematch was proposed for Melbourne and this began in late March 1852. This time the Victorians won by 61 runs. Despite some controversy over the Victorian use of professional players, relations between the two colonies and their teams remained cordial. (27)

It was the next two intercolonial matches between Tasmania and Victoria in 1858 that was to draw attention to the lingering issue of round-arm bowling. Victoria only had to bat once in the first encounter of the tour:  Tasmania produced a mere 33 in their first innings and 62 in their second falling short of Victoria’s tally of 106 by 11 runs! The Tasmanians were hounded in turn mercilessly by the pace of Gideon Elliott and Tom Wills. Elliott tore through the Tasmanian batting order in the first innings finishing with eight wickets. Wills was the star of the fielding side the next time the Victorians took the field taking five wickets. In response to what the Sydney Morning Herald later declared an ‘ignoble defeat’, the Launceston Examiner lamented that: ‘we have not one round arm bowler with command of pace in the whole country’. (28) The Hobart Town Daily Mercury reported that: ‘The round hand bowling seemed to astonish the nerves of the Launcestonians’. (29)

 

 Victorian Cricket team 1859, Gideon Elliott far left & Tom Wills far right, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia commons

The carnage continued in the rematch held in Hobart in March at the Domain led again by Elliott and Wills. In their second innings already on the second day and before a local crowd of an estimated 2000 people, Tasmanian batsman Jamieson was struck on the leg three times in the second over and afterwards required a runner. Tasmania finished their second innings with a tally of just 25 runs. (30) This game was actually later classified as the initial first-class game to be held in Hobart wherein Elliott finished with match figures of 7 for 25 yet still only supporting Tom Wills who finished with 11 for 35. Jack Pollard in his analysis of these games has argued that these poor performances by the Tasmanian team can be directly attributed to an inability to play round arm bowling – a method that was still considered on the island to be ‘unsportsmanlike’. Perhaps as a direct result of these poor performances, Tasmania did not accept further invitations for another intercolonial match for several years, while the other colonies benefited from such competition. (31)

Regardless, the intercolonial matches between 1851-8 and the match with the ‘All England team’ in 1862 had served to increase awareness of the modern round-arm style of play. The technique made the local game more dangerous and demanding and it was asserted that it drew on the ‘convict element’. This likely contributed to those among the local gentry (referred to as ‘passengers’) who could not play well being slowly weeded out from the game. The method was only slowly accepted on an official level in the state. Tom Hogg was no-balled for ‘lifting his arm above the shoulder’ in an 1863 senior match. His action was the subject of much scrutiny and fear, but he became the first Australian player to dismiss W. G. Grace. (32) It is difficult to understand how the administrators of the game in the colony could expect their players to remain competitive on any level if they could not embrace this fundamental change in the nature of the game. Perhaps they did not and that was the reason Tasmania did not participate in any intercolonial cricket for several years, content to enjoy an insular gentleman’s paradise while the world moved on? (33)

From the inception of colonization of the island from 1804, there was a demarcation line established between the North and the South at the 42^nd parallel. Both of these separate colonies, based on the Tamar River in the North and the Derwent River in the South, were answerable to the Governor in Sydney. It was not until 1813 that the administrations of both were fused. Lingering tensions between the two though are often attributed to (perceived?) inequities in the allocation of services. It is generally agreed that this rivalry has affected the administration and government of the island on all levels. (34)

North and South rivalries may have hampered the development of a co-ordinated and efficient administrative system in the colony. The Derwent and Launceston clubs did all the organizing of inter-colonial matches. Jack Pollard specifically singled out rivalries between the Northern and Southern forces of the game as the reason that there wasn’t another intercolonial game involving Tasmania after 1852 until 1858. (35) The resumption of inter-colonial competition does appears to coincide with the amalgamation of three Southern clubs (the Derwent, Break O Day and Wellington) into the Southern Tasmanian Cricket Club in 1858. (36) Even so, the first ever English tour of the Australian colonies in the 1861-2 season led to a disappointing encounter in Hobart. Significantly the local team of 22 was comprised of 11 players from each end of the colony and even then, the visitors won by four wickets. (37) In comparison, a crowd of 500 in Launceston were privy only to an hour’s exhibition play! (38)

Roger Page has argued that that North and South interests ‘clashed bitterly on any and every issue’ in the 1860s and 1870s. (39) The Southern Tasmanian Cricket Association (STCA) was formed in 1866 and arguably instigated some professionalism in relation to the administration of the game in the colony. (40) The treatment or behaviour or both of Tasmanian James Alexander Ferguson during the 1877 tour to Adelaide and Melbourne was a symptom of the simmering tensions between North and South. The trip was organized by the SCTA, but three Northerners from Launceston were included in order to make it a ‘Tasmanian’ team. Ferguson fell out with team management during the trip and was refused a place, although he did play as substitute. The ill feeling continued during two matches in Victoria staged on the way home. The Launceston Cricket Club took Ferguson’s side in relation to a dispute over travelling expenses. Relations between North and South broke of entirely between 1877-8. (41)

The standard of the game at least did rise in the second half of the Nineteenth Century as organization, pitches, equipment and play steadily improved. But the process was gradual, too gradual. Part of this improvement at least could be attributed to the formation of the Northern Cricket Association in 1886 which helped to remedy a perceived imbalance of authority and influence. (42) Aside from the clear damage inflicted by an innate conservatism among administrators, rivalries between North and South were officially acknowledged as being instrumental in retarding the development and success of the game in Tasmania. Ric Finlay has posited that insistence on ‘equal representation’ from both North and South historically led to sides not being wholly selected on merit. (43) Persistent rivalries then were regarded as the main reason Tasmania refused to join the Australian Board of Control on its formation in 1905. Consequently, the Board and the Victorian Cricket Association in turn encouraged the formation of the Executive Cricket Council of Tasmania in 1907. Tellingly, this body was comprised of six delegates, three from both the North and the South. Subsequently the Council was able to send a representative delegate to the Australian Board of Control to represent the state’s interests. (44)

The problems inherent to a small population and poverty are intertwined in Tasmania. Between 1851-2 the male population of the colony dropped by 33% and this had an immediate impact on the economy. The demographic dive caused wages to rise, caused spiraling inflation and saw land use fall by 18%. While the population drain soon after halted it is reasonable to argue that both socially and economically, the colony never fully recovered from this set back. (45) Historian Jack Pollard identifies one of the main factors in the retardation of the game in Tasmania as the effects of the gold rush. (46) While the impact of the gold rushes on the economy was probably more self-evident, there was effectively also smaller pool of men from which the sport had to draw on. The enlistment of men during the First World War and subsequent casualties similarly weakened the available pool to the extent that the 1916-7 domestic season was the last to be held until the 1935-6 season. (47) Ric Finlay identifies a ‘crippling poverty’ that decimated the potential for the sport effectively until the post-war period. Attempts to allow the state to both engage on an interstate level and play competitively consistently floundered during this period. (48) Tasmania grapples with the problems associated with a small population to this day and to some extent still, its competitiveness relies on imported players from other states and overseas. (49) At the same time over the next few decades the state produced several players of note, some even selected for the national team, including Burn, Bailey, Eady, Nash, MacDonald, Badcock and Windsor. (50)

 

 Tasmanian team that played South Africa in Hobart in 1932, Uncredited, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

There were indeed several central factors that held back the development of the local game of cricket in Tasmania during the Nineteenth Century and they likely included elitism, aversion to professionalism, resistance to the adoption of round-arm bowling, rivalry between Northern and Southern strongholds of the game, population and poverty. However, none of these were the central cause of the decline: conservatism. In fact, its arguable that the first three factors were symptoms of this all-pervading conservatism. The only factors that consistently rivalled the problem of conservatism across the entire history of cricket in the state were North South rivalry as well as the perennial issues of population and poverty. The mistrust and animosity between Northern and Southern cricket organisations appears to have further damaged the potential of the game in the state. When all that was combined with both the debilitating issues of a small (and often declining) population as well as sustained poverty, it is probably not surprising that Tasmanian cricket fell far behind the cricketing standards of the other Australian colonies and therefore failed to join the Sheffield Shield competition from its inauguration in the 1892-3 season. 

Although the government authorities in early colonial Tasmania did not seem to recognise the hegemonic power of the sport, it still developed an enduring popularity with the mainstream population. While the subsequent management of the sport by the social elite in the Nineteenth Century was not focused on exclusion, it was selfish in the sense that it attempted to preserve the game in a genteel form and thereby slowed its natural development into a professional competitive sport. Despite their actions, they unrealistically expected other colonies to pander to their preoccupation with amateurism, sometimes with humbling results! This was unfortunate considering the ‘promising start’ made by the colony as a hub of cricket from around 1826.  There is some symmetry then between the course of cricket in Tasmania and North America. The game was arguably captured by self-interested elites in both places which served to stifle its development to varying degrees. In contrast, it was to be ‘far-sighted administrators’ in the 1960s who reformed the state game in co-ordination with the Australian Cricket Board that allowed restricted entry into the Sheffield Shield in 1977 and full membership in 1982. (51) If we return then to the ugly two match intercolonial series held in Launceston and Hobart in 1858, wherein Tasmania was routed by Victoria, the response printed in the Mount Alexander Mail seems particularly astute:

We hope that the Tasmanians will be taught one lesson, and that is, not to allow any one set of men to have the right of assuming responsibility of challenging a neighbouring colony to a contest in which the character and reputation of Tasmania are involved. (52)

 

 

-  Colin Mallett, 17 December 2022.

 

Endnotes

(1) John Pollard, The Formative Years of Australian Cricket 1803-1893, The Book Company, Sydney, 1995, pp. 21, 94.

(2) A. G. Moyes, Australian Cricket: A History, Halstead Press, Sydney, 1959, pp. 16-7. The Northerners won that match by 12 runs!

(3) Courier 08 March 1854, p. 2.

(4) A. G. Moyes, op.cit.., p. 243. After Lord Sheffield’s tour of the colonies in the 1891-2 season, he donated a sum to the Australian Cricket Council who had the Sheiffield Shield trophy made. The initial competition consisted of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

(5) Ric Finlay, ‘Cricket’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History Online, accessed on 05 October 2022.

(6) Jason Kaufman & Orlando Patterson, ‘Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of Cricket’, American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no. 1, 2005, pp. 82-84, 97-9. In sociology, diffusion theory seeks to explain how a concept is transmitted, adopted and acculturated by a recipient group and the sport of cricket is used in the paper as a case study.

(7) ibid., pp. 91, 99.

(8) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 15.

(9) Jason Kaufman & Orlando Patterson, op.cit.., pp. 93, 100-1.

(10) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 65.

(11) In fact, one game that was advertised in The Independent on 14 December 1843 gave notice that a game involving ‘22 commoners’ of Launceston! A. G. Moyes, op,cit., p. 16.

(12) Jason Kaufman & Orlando Patterson, op.cit., p. 91.

(13) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 58-9.

(14) Hobart Town Advertiser 24 March 1826, p. 4 accessed on 03 October 2022. There is reportedly evidence of a previous match in an ‘anonymous report’ organised by Bowden for 1 March 1825 held on ‘Stanley’s field’ on Elizabeth Street Hobart between Liverpool and Bathurst Streets. It consisted of a match between the military and civilians and was won by the former by 15 runs. Refer to Roger Page, A History of Tasmania Cricket, L. G. Shea Government Printer Tasmania, Hobart, 1957, p. 9.

(15) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 27, 99.

(16) W. F. Mandle, ‘Thomas Wentworth Wills (1835-1880)’ in The Australian Dictionary of Biography, accessed on 03 October 2022.

(17) Jason Kaufman & Orlando Patterson, op.cit., p. 97.

(18) Launceston Examiner 27 February 1858, p.2 accessed on 03 October 2022.

(19) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 37.

(20) ibid., pp. 2, 9, 12, 20, 29.

(21) A. G. Moyes op.cit., p. 5.

(22) Ric Finlay, ‘Cricket’ in The Companion to Tasmania History Online, accessed 5 October 2022.

(23) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 15.

(24) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 29.

(25) ibid., pp. 27-8.

(26) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 19.

(27) John Pollard, op.cit., pp. 96-7.

(28) Sydney Morning Herald 4 March 1858, p.2 & Launceston Examiner 27 February 1858, p. 2 accessed on 03 October 2022.

(29) Hobart Town Daily Mercury 27 February 1858, p. 3. The reference to ‘Launcestonians’ seems odd as according to the Argus, three of the team were from the South – almost suggesting that a Hobart based team would be better prepared (?). See: 27 February 1858, p. 5. It also seems clear from the first article that the arrangements for the rematch that was to occur in Hobart had not yet been set. Both accessed on 03 October 2022.

(30) Hobart Town Advertiser 06 March 1858, p. 2.

(31) John Pollard, op.cit., pp. 98-9.

(32) ibid., pp.28-9, 35-6.

(33) A mindset reflected in the comment in the Launceston Examiner’s coverage which stated: ‘…we think it would have been better if the Victorians had not availed themselves of such skill, if only on the ground of not making the match on( e ) sided.’ See: 27 February 1858, p. 2 accessed on 03 October 2022.

(34) Judith Hollingsworth, ‘North-South Relations’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History Online accessed on 29 September 2022.

(35) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 98.

(36) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 17.

(37) Mercury 21 February 1864, p. 4. The English team returned to the state in 1874 with W. G. Grace. A good summary of both these tours can be found here: Examiner, 28 January 1908, p. 2.

(38) Ric Finlay, Island Summers, A History of Tasmanian Representative Cricket, St. David’s Park Publishing, Hobart, 1992, p. 8, 13. This practice of fielding local teams of 22 was continued on the English tour of Australia in 1873-4. At total of 14 of the 22 made ducks in their first innings!

(39) Roger Page, op.cit., p. 29.

(40) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 17.

(41) Ric Finlay, Island Summers, A History of Tasmanian Representative Cricket, op.cit., pp. 14-7. More would likely be known and understood of this whole affair (for instance why Ferguson played at Ballarat and not Beechworth?) if not for a fire at the Pavillion in 1950 which destroyed the club’s records. Refer to Roger Page, op.cit, p. 5.

(42) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 17.

(43) Ric Finlay, Island Summers, A History of Tasmanian Representative Cricket, op.cit., p. 1. Furthermore, he argues that insistence on duplication of facilities in both the North and the South along with competition over the hosting of home games have persisted to the present day and resulted in an overall failure to attract the kind of sponsorship that mainland states enjoy.

(44) John Pollard, op.cit.., pp. 31-3 & originally related by A. G. Moyes, Australian Cricket: A History, Halstead Press, Sydney, 1959, p. 25.

(45) Wendy Rimon, ‘Gold Rush in Victoria’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History Online accessed 29 September 2022.

(46) John Pollard, op.cit., p. 94.

(47) A. G. Moyes, op.cit.., pp. 16-17.

(48) Ric Finlay, ‘Cricket’, op.cit.

(49) Tim Lane, ‘Sport Thought: Revisiting Tasmania’s days of cricketing glory’ in The Sydney Morning Herald Online, 09 March 2019. Indeed, our first state Captain was former England and Lancashire player Jack Simmons who led the state to an unexpected victory in the Gillette Cup in January 1979.

(50) A. G. Moyes, op.cit., p. 31. We’ve continued to punch above our weight per capita in terms of producing talented cricketers in the post war game including national stalwarts David Boon and Ricky Ponting.

(51) Ric Finlay, ‘Cricket’, op.cit.

(52) Mount Alexander Mail 15 March 1858, p.3. Ouch!

 

Bibliography
 

Primary Sources:
 

Argus

 
Courier

Hobart Town Advertiser

Hobart Town Daily Mercury

 

The Independent

Launceston Examiner

Mercury

 
Mount Alexander Mail

Sydney Morning Herald

 
 
Secondary Sources:

Finlay, R. Island Summers, A History of Tasmanian Representative Cricket, St. David’s Park Publishing, Hobart, 1992.

Kaufman, J. & Patterson, O. ‘Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of Cricket’, American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no. 1, 2005, pp. 82-110.
Moyes, A. G. Australian Cricket: A History, Halstead Press, Sydney, 1959.

Page, R. A History of Tasmania Cricket, L. G. Shea Government Printer Tasmania, Hobart, 1957.

Pollard, J. The Formative Years of Australian Cricket 1803-1893, The Book Company, Sydney, 1995.
 

 

Online Resources:

Finlay, R. ‘Cricket’ in The Companion to Tasmania History Online, accessed on 05 October 2022.

Hollingsworth, J. ‘North-South Relations’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History Online, accessed on 29 September 2022.

 
Lane, T. ‘Sport Thought: Revisiting Tasmania’s days of cricketing glory’ in The Sydney Morning Herald Online, 09 March 2019.

Mandle, W. F. ‘Thomas Wentworth Wills (1835-1880)’ in The Australian Dictionary of Biography, accessed on 03 October 2022.

Rimon, W. ‘Gold Rush in Victoria’ in The Companion to Tasmanian History Online, accessed on 29 September 2022.

Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, accessed 29 September 2022.