Australia's Colonial Navies

[herakles]

Prior to Federation in 1901, maritime defence of each of the States was controlled by each State Parliament. At Federation they were all amalgamated into one national navy later to be called the Royal Australian Navy. (See: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2103)

During the 19th Century the Royal Navy maintained the Australia station based in Sydney. These ships were however usually absent on duty such that the country was mostly undefended.

The biggest impetus to develop local navies was due to the perceived threat of invasion from Russia in the 1850's through to the 1870's. All States responded to this and each developed a small navy for maritime protection.

New South Wales

A wooden gunboat, the Spitfire was built in 1855. Spitfire was Australia's first true warship designed for defence as well as the first constructed locally. Two torpedo boats, named Acheron and Avernus, entered service in March, 1878. In 1882, a training ship was seen to be needed and HMS Wolverene, the outgoing flagship of the Imperial Squadron soon to be replaced by the two year old armoured frigate HMS Nelson was chosen. Arrangements proceeded for her transfer as an outright gift and she transferred in January, 1882. In 1883 delivery of the minelayer Miner in 1883 was made.

See also: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2104

Queensland

In 1883, a naval brigade was formed in Queensland consisting of waterside workers, and seamen of good experience, many of whom had served in the Royal Navy. The first warships ordered for the Queensland Marine Defence Force, Gayundah and Paluma. Coinciding with the arrival of the gunboats, preparations began in earnest for the protection of the Brisbane River against the Russian threat. Plans developed for such an emergency saw boom gates at the mouth of the river and the use of mines in Moreton Bay and its approaches. To assist in these defensive measures the small launches Pippo Laura and Advance were taken over. To further improve maritime defences, the small torpedo/picket boat Midge arrived in 1888 and five hopper barges, built for the Department of Harbours & River, were altered for naval duties.

South Australia

In 1882 they commissioned construction of a ship, classified as a cruiser, called Protector. She was well armed - 11 x 8 inch, 5 x 6 inch, 4 x 3 pounder and 5 Gatling guns - perhaps even over-armed. She was always maintained in fighting condition. In 1900 she went to China to assist in the Boxer Rebellion, so she was the only colonial warship to leave Australian waters since the sloop Victoria during New Zealand's Maori Wars.

Tasmania

They maintained the schooner Eliza, used mainly to assist recovering escaping convicts. Later they acquired two torpedo boats to protect the River Derwent.

Victoria

This State maintained the most extensive naval force. The Victorian Fleet, once described as "the great navy of the southern seas" enjoyed an effective life of only forty-five years, but when compared to the other colonial fleets its ships saw many more hours of active service. The wealth of training and experience gained through the Victorian fleet was put to good use when the new Royal Australian Navy was established in 1911.

In the 1850's the first warship, an 880 ton sloop named Victoria was constructed. In 1867 the warship Nelson was acquired. Though a wooden ship and outdated, she served as a training ship for many years. At the same time, the Government ordered a new ship - Cerberus. (See: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=823&highlight=cerberus)

The year 1883 witnessed new orders for two third class gunboats, two second class and one first class torpedo boats, a total investment exceeding £84,200. The largest of the warships, named Victoria, was described as a B1 type gunboat, Albert the smaller gunboat, a type D. Both ships were rigged for sailing and in fact employed sails during their delivery voyages. Like Cerberus, Victoria and Albert were maintained in full commission with a well-trained nucleus crew. Accompanying both gunboats during the Malta to Australia leg of the delivery voyage was one first class torpedo boat Childers, herself equipped with three masts for the long voyage to Melbourne.

With the successful arrival of the new ships, the fleet now comprised seven vessels, including one monitor, two gunboats, three torpedo boats and the training ship Nelson. However, concern about Russian motives in the region and the conviction that still more defence vessels were required, led to the Government ordering a number of merchant ships as auxiliary warships. These included the minelayer Miner in 1882, the Melbourne Harbour Trust hopper barges Batman and Fawkner in 1885, the tugs Gannet and Eagle, yacht Commissioner and launch Spray. Despite this increase in fleet strength, the navy was very much undermanned.

On 25th May, 1889, the yacht-like auxiliary Vulcan, was launched into the waters off Williamstown. A 75 ton coastal minelayer, she boasted a top speed of 101/2 knots.

Manpower strength stood at 235 with 382 in the Naval Brigade at 30th June, 1890. The 1890 financial year allowed £37,527.6.4 for the naval forces, out of £145,000.00 overall for defence. Countess of Hopetoun, the first front-line warship to be ordered for a number of years was laid down in 1890 as Yard No. 905 by Yarrow & Co. The new boat was the largest torpedo boat and most powerful to operate in any colonial fleet.

Conclusion

At Federation all State navies came under the control of the new Australian Government. But by then mostly the ships were in poor condition and a considerable building program had to start to overcome this.

[vivian]

Hello Herakles,
Thanks for this......as a former South Australian I found this very interesting.

regards,
Vivian

[Capt_Starlight]

Well put together.

Minor typo - Protector had 1 x 8 inch 12 ton Armstrong BL gun as well as her 5 x 6in 4 ton Armstrong (2 on each beam and 1 on the stern) and 4 x 3 pounder Hotchkiss guns (mounted on the hurricane deck and amidships near the funnel). Each Hotchkiss gun weighed ¼ ton and was 6.72 feet long. Five Gatling machine guns capable of firing 1,200 rounds per minute were also carried. Originally 32 Martini-Henri rifles, 12 revolvers, 30 swords and a quantity of boarding pikes and axes were carried onboard.

[herakles]

Thanks for the correction.

And welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy your time here. It's nice having one of my Australian related threads replied to.

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Herk,

I seem to remember that the wreck of Cerberus was off St Kilda??? and that there was some talk 4 or 5 years ago of trying to raise her.... any knowledge of that?

Ian

[astraltrader]

Is this what you are referring to Ian?


http://www.pcmus.com/Dive-Photos/HMAS-Cerberus.htm

[herakles]

A cursory glance at the Australian Navy forum would have answered your question about Cerberus:

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=823

This was provided in the original post.

[drewsart]

I think that when we are talking about the pre-federation navies within the Australian colonies it is good to keep in mind what their roll was designed for. Their position within the greater British Empire and look at the threats to the colonies whether real, imagined or rumored.

While the british had left the shores of Australia in 1870, withdrawing their ships and garrisons as part of their plan to address savings in defense and military expenditure. The australian colonies were left with the question of how best to protect their individual interests as separate entities within the empire.

Just prior to the withdraw of the british, the Colonial Office in London had set about conducting defence tours of the colonies and formulating a series of recommendations that would be presented to the colonial governments which included the building of small self protecting navies and coastal fortifications that would guarantee a safe harbour for all the ships of the empire.

To assist with the progress of these plans two British engineers were also sent out Jervois and Scratchley. individual colonies formed defense advisory boards that would assist their colonial governments to complete the task. all of these efforts still coming under the umbrella of he Colonial office administrators.

Individual colonial Navies were then planned dependent upon the emphasis each colony placed on naval defense. the Victorian navy becoming the largest within australia.

As a personal note i have been asked many times why were the ships we ended up with purchased in the first place. With the exception of the Nelson and the Wolverine most other colonial ships were really designed for in harbour warfare as opposed to a sea going capability. this is an extremely important point that needs to be explored which we should open up for discussion at a later date.

As other forum members have stated previously there was a large ongoing British presence in the form of the British Australian Squadron that had its HQ in Sydney Harbour, while its ships were considered adequate for the Australian station they were often not in port, but their sheer presence when they were at home was enough to placate the citizens of the colonies .... well at least in Sydney.

The draw back of this fleet was that it was antiquated being constructed out of old wooden ships of the line dating from the 1850's and 1860's and its presence in Australia was can at a cost to the colonies in the form of a subsidy that was paid annually to Britain.

One other point of interest is that while it was called the Australian Squadron It was part of the RN and was not under the control of australian authorities should it be needed

Part of the defense evaluation that was carried out also identified localised possible threats to the colonies, those being The Russians, who between the 1870's and 1890's pursing a policy of eastern expansion including the development of a large naval presence and strong port in Vladivostok. Russia had a long antagonistic history with Britain since teh end of the Crimean wart and over britians alliance with Turkey.

The french who like wise had been building up a naval presence and fortifications within island of French Polonesia were also seen as a viable threat, especially when they began to export prisoners to the pacific and were in need of more land to house them. there were several incidence where French Prisioners escaped and the French sent gun boats into australian coastal waters to look for them causing scares in Queensland.

The Germans under the Kaiser had laid claim to parts of the Solomon island and New Guinea and the US as a much earlier belligerent, especially after the visit from the Confederate Raider Shenandoah in the 1860's to the port of Melbourne.

the last point that needs to be looked at is that the population of the colonies still saw them selves as British Citizens. Britain had always looked after its colonial possessions so there was a reluctance to believe that anything would happen if war came to Australia

[herakles]

That's very interesting. I have had some thoughts because of this.

It would appear that the Australian Squadron would have been quite inadequate had something happened.

The threat of Russia - no doubt imagined - was a great impetus for some sort of action.

Knowing how the States squabble with each other to this day, I would expect that at the time in the late 19th century, that co-operation between them would not have been considered. If they couldn't agree on a standard train line, what hope would there have been for anything else? It should be noted too that there was no co-operation wrt troops being sent to trouble spots.

[drewsart]

The Australian Squadron was indeed very antiquated. it consisted second and third rate wooden hull ship. The guns on the ships were mainly smooth bore ordinance that had served the British empire from the Crimean war era and would be outclassed by the more modern breach load guns that other colonial powers in the pacific had been arming their vessels with since the 1870's.

likewise the British Vessels would not have been able to stand up to the more modern shells of the other belligerent powers. Many of the vessels of Russia, Germany and France also had armoured plates fitted over their wooden superstructures so they would have, if engaged been able to stand up to the riggers of battle better than their british counterparts.

there was also the issue of maneuverability and speed both of which the british vessels lacked.

the individual ship purchases of the colonies at the time did represent the best technology available in both speed, armour and armament but as stated earlier they were only designed for closed water actions.

the heaviest and most prized ship within the colonies the Cerberus. if engaged in open water action would likewise have failed. it was quoted as being likened to being on a bobbing cork in any water that was more than slightly choppy. its guns were 1870 technology and while they packed a punch it was slow to load and was dependent upon it being able to be brought into a position where it could give a full broadside, which is hard when the vessel doesn't handle.

your point on the cooperation between the states is true. Queensland and Victoria in the 1850's had been part of NSW both achieving independence a little before the British had withdrawn. and cooperation between the colonies was always viewed with suspicion. which is strange to think that if you were reliant on a neighboring state in times of crisis, that neighbor may just let you handle the situation alone, and that was despite most colonial governments having British officers serving with them as advisors and assistants.

the threat of russia was a great impudus to the advancement in colonial defense and in a way also formed the catalyst for a combined defense policy being looked at in the late 1880's to the early 1890's. a foe that would allow men like Hutton (NSW) Monash Vic, Creswell SA, French QLD and others to finally form the colonies into a cohesive working defense body.

[herakles]

I would be interested to know just how involved RN men were in the Colonial navies. I am aware that when the RAN was formed, a significant number of crew were british. In a similar vein, 35% of the ANZACS at Gallipoli were English born.

As for Cerberus, her sister ship did roll over and sink.

I guess the Australian public were not concerned at the time for their safety. They assumed britain would come to their aid. Just as they expected this to happen when WW2 started. After all, we had given so much to fight England's earlier war. How wrong they were. Who would have thought that Churchill would sell us down the river. :eek:

[drewsart]

I agree

what i think is amazing when looking at the colonial period, the independent colonies were expected to contribute to the royal navies presence and upkeep here a burden which was to consume a great deal of the colonial defense budgets of the colonial powers.

Yet when Britain became involved in the various little wars that occurred during Queen Victoria's reign we volunteered troops, ships and supplies to support Britain. often at a great expense to our colonies in monetary terms and in loss of life.

We sent troops and ships to the Maori Wars, the Boxer Rebellion and the worst ever for australia prior to World War 1, the Boer war.

After these actions ceased we then continued to pay off the debts we incurred in sending our soldier and sailors overseas.

Then there is also the issue of our military forces being seen as less able and of lower quality and calibre.

our officers were seen as being of lower ability and could not transfer to the RN or Imperial army. yet officers who transferred to the Australian station were given an equal or greater rank than the one they had left and were treated with god like status because they had come from Britain. this was despite our service men having a superior local knowledge of the conditions and issues of our defense forces.

but that is history now, and added more weight to the need for the australian colonies to form an independent army and navy from great britain

[herakles]

Your comments are most interesting indeed. You are opening a Pandora's box concerning Britain and Australia which I doubt the English could properly comprehend. The faith Australians held in Britain was so big (to the last shilling ...) and so tested so many times. Not so now.

One thing that riles me is that the many huge battles won by the 1st AIF in WW1 are passed off as "british victories". It's popular myth to say that it was th arrival of the Americans that won that war. I don't agree. It was the Australians who won all the crucial battles in 1917 and 1918.

[drewsart]

I again agree with you

many times at the end of WW1 1917 and 1918 when General Pershing was asked to commit troops he refused saying that his boys were unready. The led assaults were often assigned to Australian, New Zealand and Canadian veteran divisions and won by them. the us divisions although fresh and at full strength were often held in reserve.

what i plan to do in the next few weeks is list by date the development of each colonies navies. explain a little about the ships that each colony possessed which will hopefully generate some interest for some readers of the forum.

as i have stated although i do have a great depth in knowledge of the WW1 period i will stop at federation as this is my real area of interest

Andrew

[battlestar]

G'Day All

First off, great thread. I know a bit of the Colonial Navies but I'm always interested in learning more!


One thing that riles me is that the many huge battles won by the 1st AIF in WW1 are passed off as "british victories". It's popular myth to say that it was th arrival of the Americans that won that war. I don't agree. It was the Australians who won all the crucial battles in 1917 and 1918.

herakles, you are so right.

Mention Sir John Monash to a Brit and its 'Who?' I believe Sir John was the only General to be knighted in the field after HIS victory at Le Hamel.

But it does not end at WWI and land battles, it goes all the way to Korea. I grew up reading British miltary history books at the local libraries, so as a young lad I thought that Australia did bugger all. Imagine my suprise when the TV mini series ANZAC's (Andrew Clarke, Paul Hogan) showed that without Aussie troops, WWI would have been very different. It was after seeing ANZAC's that I made a determined effort to find out the Australian Stories, and I'll tell you now, they are as fasinating as those from elsewhere.

Even Australia's Colonial Navies had an presence, the Boxer Rebellion in China with ictorian forces is but one example I can think of.

[herakles]

G'Day All

Mention Sir John Monash to a Brit and its 'Who?' I believe Sir John was the only General to be knighted in the field after HIS victory at Le Hamel.

Your comment on Monash is quite timely. Have a look at this thread and note how many people responded to it:

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2502

In a similar vein, ask most Brits what Long Tan was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Tan

[drewsart]

that is amazing that only one responded. i also contribute to another forum that does cover our involvement within WW1 and if i had posted what you had on Monash i would have received many responses, questions and further information.

Do you think it is because there anent many australians who are members of this forum or because it has a naval focus and your postings may not have brought much in the way of interest within their fields of involvement.... just some thoughts

Andrew

[drewsart]

Ian sorry mate i am not ignoring you

i would be more than happy to exchange what you know with what i know there are so few people that realize that Australia had navies before federation, let alone understand the type of navies that existed and the conditions that they served under.

Andrew

[astraltrader]

that is amazing that only one responded. i also contribute to another forum that does cover our involvement within WW1 and if i had posted what you had on Monash i would have received many responses, questions and further information.

Do you think it is because there anent many australians who are members of this forum or because it has a naval focus and your postings may not have brought much in the way of interest within their fields of involvement.... just some thoughts

Andrew

Andrew - there are a few Australians in the forum - but the lack of posts in reply to the Monash thread are not really that surprising because as you rightly conclude - unlike the other forum that you are a member of - this is not a WW1 forum but a Naval forum.

[herakles]

that is amazing that only one responded. i also contribute to another forum that does cover our involvement within WW1 and if i had posted what you had on Monash i would have received many responses, questions and further information.

Do you think it is because there anent many australians who are members of this forum or because it has a naval focus and your postings may not have brought much in the way of interest within their fields of involvement.... just some thoughts

Andrew

The lack of responses worries me too. My experience of other similar forums is as you describe. I can hardly keep up at these.

On a similar note to the Aussie generals thread, have a look at:

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2529

Not a single response. Despite the fact that the RN featured a great deal.

I did an experiment recently. I posted the same thread here and at another forum. Here there wasn't one reply. At the other, postings went to 2 pages.

I think the major reason is that the vast majority of members are english and they only want to collect pictures of RN ships.

We need many more international members. Members interested in discussion.

[astraltrader]

I am not at all surprised that nobody answered your thread on the Italian ships as all that you wrote has already been covered in other threads here previously. If you use the search facility you will be able to find them.

As Drewsart correctly surmised the lack of overt interest in Monash is directly attributable to this being a Naval forum.

As usual what you say about all the members of this forum just wanting to collect pictures of RN ships is complete nonsense and an insult to our members.
There is plenty of discussion here about warships that as we know you have little interest in and as well there is a large quantity of pictures of ships from other navies.

I have no intention of standing by when you criticise this forum.

If you really aren`t happy here then the solution is in your hands...

[drewsart]

Good morning gents now that we have that off our chest maybe we can get back on subject.

Ian are there any areas that you need more info on or for are ther any other people who have specific wants in regard to more information

is it worth possibly picking a state and then firuing off what we all know about it

just some thoughts

Andrew

[astraltrader]

Andrew - do you know anything about a brief skirmish between a French warship and either a Royal Navy or Australian gunboat that apparently took place sometime during the 1870`s at the edge of the territorial waters of Queensland?

The skirmish consisted of little more than an exchange of shots with no hits recorded.

Sorry to be a little sketchy on facts and names but I am trying to remember something that I read many years ago - but no matter how hard I have looked, find myself unable to discover anything at all about this episode.

Presumably as you referred to in your earlier post the French ship was probably either on its way to or from their colony in Polynesia.

I am fairly sure that the account that I read mentioned a RN warship - but if it took place during the 1870`s and being technically in the territorial waters of Queensland, I suppose it could have been one of their gunboats as they had 2 or 3 at the time?

[herakles]

Just another point. It will be good to look more into a particular state but that will also mean looking at several other aspects of that State as well.

Public opinion at the time would interest me.

[drewsart]

Hi Terry

I am still looking through my books and records for the incident you described within Queensland territorial waters.

If indeed it occurred in 1870 (I am not doubting your date) then yes it would be an RN ship. No colonial navies existed in 1870 other than survey ships and those would definitely have been under the command umbrella of the RN.

I would imagine that if shots had been fired then it would also likely have been an RN ship as the colonies were not permitted to conduct an act of war without admiralty permission and certainly not before at least 1885.

I am aware of shots being exchanged between Queensland naval ships and French naval ships hunting escaped convicts from the French controlled pacific islands but that was in the mid to late 1880's.

However I will keep searching for more detail do you have any recollection of any of the ships name involved in this action

Andrew

[drewsart]

Hi Herakles

That would indeed be good to look at. I know from my knowledge and just quickly of the top of my head. The Australian Squadron based in Sydney harbour was seen as the focal point for celebration and entertainment for many years by the citizens of Sydney, but ports like Port Phillip in Victoria and those in Tasmania often requested an RN presence and other than brief visits by the ships of the station no presence or relationship resulting form a presence was fostered.

The resulting relationship formed from the above interactions resulted in Sydney people feeling that they were indeed protected by the RN and possibly feeling more akin to the empire, while the people of Port Phillip and elsewhere were left to fell that any response to defence would have to come from the colony itself.

However having siad that, it doesn’t mean that Sydney didn’t undertake some defensive measures. It continued to redefine and develop large battery emplacements around the harbour it self but neglected to form a viable navy.

It would indeed be good to investigate these interactions further

Andrew

[herakles]

What you say no doubt explains why the Victorian navy was by far the largest. I've wondered about that for some time. It seems to me that it was as big as all the others put together. Yet Sydney was the wealthy state.

Not that they were states then.

[drewsart]

In looking at Victoria’s need for a larger Navy you have to take into account all the other factors for its existence

(1) Port Phillip is many times larger than the Port Jackson area within Sydney harbour. Port Phillip is divided up by safe channels for passage limiting access to larger shipping, while still having large expanses of shallow water that will offer protection to smaller craft that could add to a defensive posture of the bay. Some of the channels, headlands and narrows were able to be defended by emplacements with large fixed ordinance which would negate the need for the heavier ships of the Australian Squadron to be present.

(2) The ships of the Victorian navy fall into three types of vessel.
(I) large ships with heavy ordinance capability like the HMVS Nelson and Cerberus.
(II) The smaller and more maneuverable fast attack craft like the torpedo boats HMVS Nepean, HMVS Lonsdale and later the HMVS Countess of Hopetoun & HMVS Childers, the shallow draft guns boats HMVS Albert and Victoria II.
(III) The auxiliaries - civilian shipping craft that had military capability in times of crisis that were either partially owned by the Victorian defence force or were leased as auxiliaries.
All being capable of operating in the shallows with the exception of the two larger ships with the added bonus of local knowledge.

(3) The best prepared and armed defensive facilities outside of Gibraltar – once referred to as the “Gibraltar of the South”.

(4) The largest gold holdings within the entire British empire a sum that has been quoted as being worth 50 million in sterling. A sum that would present a very lucrative target for an enterprising raider wanting to blood the nose of the British Empire or just wanting to take the opportunity for loot and glory.

These factors coupled with the draw back factors as follows

A very large and constantly increasing population of itinerate workers landing daily to work the gold fields or looking to make a new life. These workers were an unknown quantity to the colonial government and presented constant problems of what would happen in a crisis if they to rose up to threaten the Victorian authority.

The want by the populous to be seen as a loyal part of the British Empire often receiving criticism for being “colonials”, being seen as second rate and always placed at a lower peg to imperial troops, ships and command.

The reality that if a crisis did come to Victoria it would be a long time before any assistance could be dispatched from other colonies to help, if indeed it was offered, outside what ever help the imperial government could send immediately which by the 1880’s that was minimal.

Then the need acquirement the “new order” warfare technologies which were ordered by the colony. But due to long construction times or the time it took to transport these items to Victoria. It was often found that they had been surpassed by better technology, design and developments.

However what Victoria had was adequate for its task. Victorian authorities were able to operate well within the confines the British government had placed on them. The Volunteers (pre 1884) the militia (1884+) and permanent troops made sure that what they had was efficient and capable of being used to its best ability.

Hence the need for a large navy for defence security and for self reliance.

Andrew

[herakles]

Andrew, that's most interesting! Thank you for it.

The limited deep water facilities in Port Phillip Bay are a most cogent point. I know the mud from plenty of sailing there! Then there's the Rip. :eek:

The isolation of Melbourne must have been significant. At least until what, 1880? 1890?

Sydney Harbour would allow great access - once through the Heads.

But, correct me if I am wrong - after the supposed Russian menace was finished, the actual need for defence of this size must have dimmed. Not that the locals knew that.

[astraltrader]

Hi Terry

I am still looking through my books and records for the incident you described within Queensland territorial waters.

If indeed it occurred in 1870 (I am not doubting your date) then yes it would be an RN ship. No colonial navies existed in 1870 other than survey ships and those would definitely have been under the command umbrella of the RN.

I would imagine that if shots had been fired then it would also likely have been an RN ship as the colonies were not permitted to conduct an act of war without admiralty permission and certainly not before at least 1885.

I am aware of shots being exchanged between Queensland naval ships and French naval ships hunting escaped convicts from the French controlled pacific islands but that was in the mid to late 1880's.

However I will keep searching for more detail do you have any recollection of any of the ships name involved in this action

Andrew


Sorry Andrew - this event was something that has stuck in my mind from something I read over 30 years ago. To be honest it is possible that it even occurred during the 1880`s rather than the 1870`s - but it was the latter date that stuck in my mind.

Of course I have made the usual searches but have not managed to find anything related to naval clashes with the French in that part of the world...

I do appreciate your interest in this and should you ever turn up anything about it would love to hear about it...

[drewsart]

Hi Terry

I have found a reference to the roll of the Royal Navy in Queensland territorial waters between the dates of 1860 and 1870

In Bob Nicholls book - The colonial Volunteers - the defence forces of the Australian Colonies 1836 - 1901, page48

"The Australian Command had been established as a separate command in the royal navy in 1859, but the few non descript ships of the squadron spent much of their time in the waters of the South Pacific - suppressing traffic in native labour kidnapped by 'blackbirders' from the pacific islands to work on Queensland plantations, carrying out survey duties on detachment or at anchor in Port Jackson" . later in the book he also talks about running of privateers. Unfortunately Bob doesn’t give ship details other than these few brief statements of events.

From my memory and unfortunately only that as I cant find the other reference. I also read that the process for suppression was to hunt off offenders, which would mean putting a shot across the bow and then chasing them until they left territorial waters, there was no real effort to sink or arrest offending vessels.

If you reference explored one of these incidents in detail it could well have turn out to be a skirmish, between an RN ship and a French privateer operation from one of the French colonial bases.

If it was in the 1880’s or 1890’s then I will also track down those incidents and post them, there were a little more menacing in their nature as both nations were testing each other resolve and steel in the pacific.

Andrew

[drewsart]

Hi Herakles

I did forget the rip factor thanks for reminding me on that one.

The last real crisis where the colonies felt that they would be involved in a war with Russia came in around 1891. So your comments about the facilities and indeed the navy being redundant after that are true.

Once there were no more scares the Victorian colonial administrators started to wind back defence expenditure. By the mid 1890’s some facilities were no longer operational and the Ground forces of the colony were likewise down sized.

Going back to your comments and exploration of attitude I also came across this quote again from Bob Nicholls book on page 36 and extract that came from the Mills Committee (this was one of the comities set up to investigate possible reductions in expenditure by the imperial governments towards the colonies as a cost cutting exercise)

“This clear indication of future British attitudes towards their overseas dependencies was strengthened by the findings of the Mills Committee when they were received in the colonies.

The committee divided all the British colonies - excluding India - into two classes: Colonies proper, all with varying degrees of self government; and military garrisons, naval coaling stations, convict settlements maintained for imperial purposes and dependencies maintained chiefly for purposes of imperial policy”

In short the Australian colonies after 1870 ….. “colonies proper” would now be tasked with the cost of their own defence and the other group military garrisons would be down sized and they value as prisons or coaling stations would make the basis for the support they received.

So to lessen the cost burden for Australia they withdrew the garrison, transferred the responsibility of government to a newel formed colonial governments who now operated under the umbrella of a colonial administrator and then finally the penal system also was placed under the administration of the newel formed colonial governments. So by 1870 the cost for the Australian colonies was negligible and if they needed defence support they them selves must purchase it from the professional imperial forces as a cost or raise their own.

[astraltrader]

Hi Terry

I have found a reference to the roll of the Royal Navy in Queensland territorial waters between the dates of 1860 and 1870

In Bob Nicholls book - The colonial Volunteers - the defence forces of the Australian Colonies 1836 - 1901, page48

"The Australian Command had been established as a separate command in the royal navy in 1859, but the few non descript ships of the squadron spent much of their time in the waters of the South Pacific - suppressing traffic in native labour kidnapped by 'blackbirders' from the pacific islands to work on Queensland plantations, carrying out survey duties on detachment or at anchor in Port Jackson" . later in the book he also talks about running of privateers. Unfortunately Bob doesn’t give ship details other than these few brief statements of events.

From my memory and unfortunately only that as I cant find the other reference. I also read that the process for suppression was to hunt off offenders, which would mean putting a shot across the bow and then chasing them until they left territorial waters, there was no real effort to sink or arrest offending vessels.

If you reference explored one of these incidents in detail it could well have turn out to be a skirmish, between an RN ship and a French privateer operation from one of the French colonial bases.

If it was in the 1880’s or 1890’s then I will also track down those incidents and post them, there were a little more menacing in their nature as both nations were testing each other resolve and steel in the pacific.

Andrew

Sterling effort Andrew - appreciated.

I am sorry that I can`t remember anymore about the account of the skirmish - but I feel sure it was more potentially "serious" than a case of "blackbirding".

As I have said - anything at all that you uncover would be of great interest to me.

[herakles]

Do you have the date of the Mills Committee report?

I was thinking if their thoughts were in any way related to the detestable transportation system the English used. As I recall, transportation ceased in the 1860's.

My thinking is that the English had some sort of policy change that might also have involved reducing military support to the Colonies at the same time.

I'm thinking that Australians love affair with England was still strong at this time. Perhaps the first dent in this was the Breaker Morant affair during the Boer War. Because it was all downhill after that.

[drewsart]

The Mills committee submitted their report in 1862 it was one of the major underpinning documents for the 1870 withdrawal of imperial garrisons from Australia and the transfer of responsibility to the colonies.

You are correct about the love affair still being strong at that time. The identification with Great Britain persisted into the 1890’s and may well have been broken with incidents similar to the Breaker Morant execution.

Following the British withdrawal in 1870 the Australian colonies formed defence committees that saw their roll as being subservient to the imperial navy and army. The colonial navies that were proposed at that time would be classed as the British Auxiliary naval forces within Australia which also included the colonies of new Zealand and Fiji. Their roll was only to be defence of local waters and they were not allowed at that time to sail under the flag of the RN without a royal warrant from Britain. However the Royal Navy had the right to request vessels as their reserve auxiliary force at any time to supplement their navy if a crisis arose.

It would be good to post the1865 Colonial Naval Defence Act for the group that the colonies had to abide by when the imperial navy was first withdrawn, although it is a lengthy document what I may do is go through it and post what is relevant for what were are talking about. The document continues the line that the colonies ships and their personal were indeed British subjects, and their ships the crowns property yet they were always considered auxiliary to the Imperial forces and could not under the terms of the agreement operate independently without a royal warrant.

Andrew

[herakles]

There's no doubt that residents of Australia were British citizens. This didn't change until 1947 as I recall. The attitude of England at the time is concordant with a nation that regarded itself as superior to all others. No doubt some there still think that.

It's also reflected in the attitude of British commanders to want to divide Australian forces instead of keeping them as a single entity in later times of war. You'd have thought they understood not to from WW1 but they were still trying it on in WW2.

[battlestar]

G'Day Andrew


Ian are there any areas that you need more info on or for are ther any other people who have specific wants in regard to more information
is it worth possibly picking a state and then firuing off what we all know about it
Andrew

Sorry I hadn't gotten back before now.

I seem to recall that Victoria sent a ship to China for the Boxer Rebellion, but when it got back it was part of the new RAN? Is this right?

Ian

[herakles]

Ian, the Sth. Aust ship HMCS Protector did go to the Boxer Rebellion and was eventually integrated into the RAN. She was at the time captained by Cresswell who eventually took command of the early RAN.

Interesting that this war was called a "rebellion"! Naughty boys!

[drewsart]

What you both have said is correct in a way.

The colonial navies at the time of the start of the Boxer rebellion were operating under the 1887 Colonial naval agreement - this agreement had within its terms a clause that forbid the use of colonial navy vessels outside their colonies waters it also forbid and vessel from leaving Australian territorial waters without the approval of both the Admiralty and the British Government.

However in the case of the Boxer rebellion the british government asked for assistance. The colonial governments offered a joint colonial contingent from both New South Wales and Victoria in the form of a naval brigade (blue Jackets) a contingent that numbered 500 members as well as the HMCS Protector from South Australia.

So that the Protector did not breach the colonial naval agreement the gun boat was commissioned into the Royal Navy, although during its deployment in China the HMCS protector did serve under its own ensign a situation that caused distress to the admiralty.

Unlike the blue jackets the HMCS Protector did not serve long in the theatre and was returned shortly after it arrived back to Australia, which by now, being 1901 had seen the federation of the colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia.

Federation at this time had only occurred on paper and despite the theoretical existence of a single Australian command being created as part of a new Commonwealth organisation - no state had moved to ratify any of the agreed terms. So the Protector remained the HMCS Protector until around 1905.

Andrew

[astraltrader]

Andrew - why HMCS - do you mean HMAS?:confused:

[drewsart]

Hi Terry

HMCS refers to Her/His Majesties Colonial Ship this term was used by the New South Wales and South Australian Colonial Navies within Australia prior to 1905. Queensland used the HMCS and also HMQS Her/His Majesties Queensland Ship and the colony of Victoria used HMVS Her/His Majesties Victorian Ship.

The term HMAS Her/His Majesties Australian Ship comes from the commonwealth period and although technically it started in 1901 it was not applied to ships titles dependent upon the date of uptake by individual colonies, so you may see it used in 1902/1903/1905 for the first time but by 1911 all commonwealth naval ships were using it.

in the case of the Protector it volunteered for china as HMCS, was transfered to the Admiralty as HMS returned to Australia as HMCS and then around 1807 i think became HMAS Protector ... i will have to check that one

Andrew

[drewsart]

I just thought that i would try and clear up the issue around federation and the beginning of the RAN, this may help some forum members.

From march 1901 under federation all of the colonial navies and their vessels came under the legal ownership of the commonwealth of Australia and thus would be able to fly the Australian Blue ensign and use the prefix HMAS. However there was no initial attempt to centralize the colonial naval forces. This task would fall to a naval administration board that would ensure that a unified body would come into existence for the commonwealth. The proposed creation date for this body would be the 1st march 1904, after the Commonwealth Defense Act of 1903 had came into effect.

However there was a delay and the board was not formally appointed until 1905, on its creation the board comprised three members. This initial board operated from 1905 until 1911 a small and very over worked naval head with a large and at times overbearing task ahead of it.

the 1905 - 1911 board consisted of the following appointments

(I) The minister of defense
(II) The director of naval forces (Creswell)
(II) The finance minister

I hope this little add-it has helped

Andrew

[astraltrader]

Hi Terry

HMCS refers to Her/His Majesties Colonial Ship this term was used by the New South Wales and South Australian Colonial Navies with Australia prior to 1905. Queensland used the HMCS and also HMQS Her/His Majesties Queensland Ship and Victoria used HMVS Her/His Majesties Victorian Ship.

The term HMAS Her/His Majesties Australian Ship comes from the commonwealth period and although technically it started in 1901 it was not applied to ships titles dependent upon the colony using the title from 1902/1903/1905 and the true commonwealth navy from 1911.

in the case of the Protector it volunteered for china as HMCS, was transfered to the Admiralty as HMS returned to Australia as HMCS and then around 1807 i think became HMAS Protector ... i will have to check that one

Andrew

Thanks andrew. I wonder when the term HMCS was first used solely for Canadian ships?

[vivian]

Terry, it was 1910 and HMS Rainbow became the first ship designated HMCS Rainbow, followed by HMCS Niobe.

regards
Viv

[drewsart]

given that we have been looking at the Victorian Colonial Navy in earlier posts here is their entire navy during the colonial period

War Ship
Ships Name /Type /Service dates
Victoria sloop 1855 - 1882
Pharos Gunboat 1864 -1881
Nelson Ship of the line 1867 - 1898
Cerberus Monitor 1870 - 1924
Miner Minelayer 1882 - 1904
Victoria II Gunboat 1884 - 1896
Albert Gunboat 1884 - 1897
Childers Torpedo Boat 1884 - 1918
Nepean Torpedo Boat 1884 - 1914
Lonsdale Torpedo Boat 1884 - 1914
Gordon Torpedo Boat 1886 - 1914
Vulcan Minelayer 1889 - 1918
Mars Picket Boat 1890 - 1946
Countess of Hopetoun Torpedo Boat 1891 - 1924

Auxiliary Ship
Ships Name /Type /Function
Sir henry Smith Hulk Blocking Ship/Training Ship
Loelia Schooner Survey vessel
Sacramento Hulk Magazine Ship
Deborah Hulk Store Ship
Batman Hopper Barge Gun Boat
Fawkner Hopper Barge Gun Boat
Gannet Tug Gun Boat
Commissioner Yacht Torpedo Boat
Spray Launch Picket Boat
Eagle (Osprey) Tug Gun Boat


I have also included the names of the commanding officers of the Victorian Colonial Naval Forces

Commander W H Norman 1855- 1869
Lieutenant W J Painter 1870 - 1877
Captain C T Mandeville 1877 - 1882
Captain A B Thomas RN 1883 - 1888
Captain W F S Mann RN 1889 - 1891
Captain R W White RN 1892 - 1893
Captain G Neville RN 1893 - 1897
Commander F R Tickwell 1897 - 1904
Captain W R Creswell 1904 - 1907

I hope this is of interest to the forum members

Andrew