The Rum Rebellion of 1808: A clash of personality and

economic direction between Bligh and Mcarthur.

SYNOPSIS

This essay considers whether the Rum Rebellion of 1808 was caused by conflicts over
economics or by a clash of personalities. It argues that neither of these by itself was the
cause, rather, that it was only through a clash of both economics and personality that the
mutiny was possible. It shows that the fiery, argumentative and stubborn personalities of
both Bligh and Macarthur, only when combined with their incompatible economic views
and plans for the colony, was a mutiny possible. And that the mutiny was almost inevitable
due to their unwillingness to compromise, and their inability to recognise a single cause of
the mutiny themselves.

On 26 January 1808 the New South Wales Corps staged a mutiny and removed
William Bligh from the Governorship of New South Wales.

This essay will argue that the mutiny was caused by the different economic view points
of Governor Bligh and John Macathur, combined with a clash of personalities. It will show
that personality and economics alone did not cause the mutiny, but that only through the
combination of two strong willed and tenacious men, clashing over different economic
directions for the colony, was the mutiny made possible. Areas such as the characters of
Bligh and Macarthur, in particular the parts of their characters that made a clash likely, their
different views on the economic direction of the colony, and how these combined led to the
mutiny, will be examined.

The personality conflicts between Bligh and Macarthur revolved very much on the
characters of the two men. Bligh was a proud man, with a moral streak, who was well
known for his coarse and insulting language, and had a reputation for oppressive and
tyrannical behaviour. In fact in 1805 Bligh was reprimanded for his treatment of Lieutenant
John Frazier, in which he was accused of being "grossly insulting" and for his "tyrannical,
oppressive and un-officer-like conduct".1 Bligh was also a very argumentative man who
quarrelled with many people including prominent people in the N.S.W. colony.2 He could
also be very petty and stubborn in arguments, as when in 1806 he tried to stop Captain
Short from coming ashore from his ship.3 Although he was no more or less despotic than
previous governors, Bligh believed that he was the law in N.S.W.4 As well he could not
tolerate anyone questioning his decisions and commands, and would fly into fits of rage at
this.5 Yet H.V. Evatt, although recognising Bligh's fiery temper, uses Bligh's testimony at
the Warrior court martial in 1804, to argue that Bligh was not malicious or tyrannical, but
that his behaviour was simply because he hated any signs of laziness and inefficiency and
that he was dedicated to getting a job done.6

Macarthur by comparison was a passionate man, who was quick tempered and had a
tendency to be difficult to handle.7 He was constantly involved in violent disputes with
others and was a formidable enemy, yet was also loyal and affectionate to his friends and
family, and lived in a decent and respectable way unlike many others in the colony.8
Macarthur constantly fought with people in authority, including both Governors King and
Hunter, and could be said to have had little respect for authority when it went against his
own plans.9 He was considered to be as "keen as a razor and as rapacious as a shark" ,
and was feared by Governor King who thought that Macarthur was aiming to be the next
Governor of the colony.10 He could also be somewhat arrogant, as in 1806 when he first
met Bligh, he claimed he represented the free-settlers, who later repudiated his claim.11

Bligh was chosen as Governor to replace King, as the British Government wanted a
strong man to govern the troublesome and difficult N.S.W. colony.12 This was in part due
to the past actions by Macarthur, who was involved in long struggles with both Governors
Hunter and King, and who continuously tried to undermine their authority, leading in part at
least to their replacement.13

These struggles, in the case of King, were mainly over his attempts to gain control as
governor over all the colony's transactions, which clashed with the interests of the traders.14
By this time Macarthur was the wealthiest and most influential man in N.S.W.,15 and used
to usually getting his own way, by whatever method necessary, but he did not realise that
Bligh was far stronger than Hunter and King, and far more persistent, and that he would not
accept any defiance of his authority or challenge to his plans.16 Both men were very
tenacious and prepared to "fight to the bitter end" in order to get what they wanted.17 Yet
their personalities alone were not the cause of the mutiny, for them to clash they needed a
reason, a difference of opinion, to bring to the fore the parts of their personalities, when
combined with this reason, that created the motivation for the mutiny itself.

This reason was economic, as Bligh and Macarthur had very different views on the
economic future and direction of the colony. Macarthur, with officers of the New South
Wales Corps, was involved in the trading of spirits, which Bligh was determined to stop by
prohibiting its use as a form of payment.18

As well, Macarthur was beginning to become involved in sheep grazing, whereas Bligh
had no interest in grazing, because he believed that the colony could prosper only through
agriculture and that grazing would threaten this.19 Therefore Bligh represented a two sided
threat to Macarthur, he threatened Macarthur's profits from rum at the very time Macarthur
was making the transition to sheep grazing. This transition was all the more important for
Macarthur because since 1800 with the arrival of professional merchants 20 the monopoly
of the officers began to end, and by 1808 they were no longer the major importers and
traders in the colony.21 Clearly, the commercial and grazing interests of Macarthur and his
supporters were incompatible with Bligh's view of the colony, as first and foremost a penal
colony primarily concerned with agriculture.22

This difference in the economic direction of the colony was like fuel to their fiery
personalities, for men prone to disputes it made a clash of wills and interests inevitable. It
was only through a combination of both men having an aggressive personality and a conflict
of interests that lead to the mutiny.23 If Bligh and Macarthur had the same view on
economic direction then just having aggressive personalities was unlikely to cause a mutiny,
any disagreements likely being over how to achieve the desired outcome, rather than the
outcome itself. As well, having differing economic views would not have been a major
problem if one of the men had been less aggressive and tenacious, if Bligh had been more
like King for instance, then Macarthur could have continued on as usual.24

This combined clash of both personality and interests also made compromise almost
impossible. For Macarthur it was impossible to give up the lucrative trade in spirits as well
as give up his plans for grazing at the same time, and still continue to retain his wealth. For
Bligh stopping the rum trade was a moral duty,25 and extensive sheep grazing would limit
the land available for farming.26 If they had been able to compromise, such as Macarthur
giving up or at least limiting the rum trade for Bligh's support for a combination of both
farming and grazing together, then there would likely have been no need for a mutiny.27

Yet neither man was willing or able to compromise. Macarthur's being used to flaunting
authority and getting his own way, as well as his willingness to fight for his interests,28
clashed against Bligh's legitimate authority as governor to set the direction of the colony ,
and his refusal to tolerate anyone questioning his decisions and commands.29 In fact at the
trial of Colonel Johnston, Macarthur stated that there had been no complaints made to Bligh
concerning his governorship of the colony.30 So therefore it seems clear that either the two
men believed that the other was unprepared to compromise and therefore discussion was
useless, or they weren't even prepared to talk over their differences at all, in an attempt to
avert a mutiny.

In fact, Macarthur and Bligh themselves did not agree on the reason for the mutiny.
Bligh in a letter to Lord Castlereagh in June 1808 mentions that the only aim of the
mutineers is the "desire to acquire wealth".31 Later, at the trial of Colonel Johnston, Bligh
stated that the mutiny was very much about trading interests, especially in spirits, and named
Macarthur particularly as being dissatisfied with its prohibition.32 Whereas Macarthur,
when asked at the same trial whether Bligh's regulations over the trading of spirits influenced
his conduct towards Bligh, replied that it had not. He then went on to say that he knew of
no one who was dissatisfied with Bligh's prohibition, and that the amount of rum imported
into the colony at the time was "insignificant" so that people had "very little interest about
it".33

So in conclusion it can be seen that Bligh's and Macarthur's character's were very much
the same. Both men were strong willed and argumentive, both tenacious, stubborn, and
prepared to fight to get what they wanted, and to continue fighting until they got it. As well
both men had clearly incompatible economic directions in mind for the colony. Separately
these were unlikely to have led to a mutiny, but in combination made a show down between
the two men highly likely.

The fact that the two main protagonists in the mutiny could not agree on the cause or
reason for the mutiny, is a clear indication that their was no single cause, either economic or
personality, of the mutiny. It was only when their strength of will was fuelled by their
differing interests, and their inability to even contemplate a compromise, that a mutiny
became possible, even inevitable.For both, it was basically a case of crash through or
crash, no compromise being possible.

REFERENCE LIST:

1. C.M.H. Clark, A History of Australia, 3 Vols, Vol. 1, (Melbourne: Melbourne

University Press, 1978), p 212.

2. M. Barnard, A History of Australia, 2nd ed (Melbourne: Angus and Robertson

Publishers, 1976), p. 95.

3. Clark, op. cit., p. 213.

4. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, Vol 7.

Part 1, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 100.

5. Clark, op. cit., p. 216.

6. H.V. Evatt, Rum Rebellion, (Melbourne: Lloyd O'Neil Pty.Ltd, 1971), p. 93.

7. A. Atkinson, " A New John Macarthur ", The Push from the Bush, April 1984,

no. 17, p. 46.

8. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

p. 104.

9. Ibid., p. 104.

10. Ibid., p. 101.

11. M. Barnard, op. cit., p. 94.

12. Ibid., p. 93.

13. H.V. Evatt, op. cit., p. 97.

14. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

p. 100.

15. M. Barnard, op. cit., p. 94.

16. H.V. Evatt, op. cit., p. 97.

17. Ibid., p. 97.

18. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

pp. 100-101.

19. M. Barnard, op. cit., p. 95.

20. K. Buckley, and T. Wheelwright, No Paradise For Workers: Capitalism and

the Common People in Australia 1788-1914, (Melbourne: Oxford University

Press, 1988), p. 47.

21. A. Atkinson, "The Little Revolution in New South Wales 1808", The

International History Review, Vol XII. No. 1. February. 1990, pp. 67-68.

22. Ibid., p. 68.

23. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

p. 104.

24. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

p. 100.

25. Clark, op. cit., p. 214.

26. A. Atkinson, "The Little Revolution in New South Wales 1808", op. cit., p.68.

27. M. Barnard, op. cit., p. 94.

28. E. Scott, (ed), Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia, op. cit.,

p. 104.

29. Clark, op. cit., pp. 215-216.

30. A Charge of Mutiny: The Court Martial of Lieutenant Colonel George

Johnston for Deposing Govornor William Bligh in the Rebellion

of 26 January 1808, (Canberra: Nation Library of Australia, 1988), p. 207.

31. ' Extract From A Secret Letter From Governor Bligh To Lord Castlereagh

20.6.1808 ', Historical Records of New South Wales, Ser. 1, Vol. 6, Sydney,

1916, in Australian Colonial History 1788-1860 Documents,

H. Weatherburn (Compl.), 1996, p. 42.

32. A Charge of Mutiny, op. cit., p. 6.

33. A Charge of Mutiny, op. cit., p. 199-200.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1988. A Charge of Mutiny: The Court Martial of Lieutenant Colonel George Johnston for
Deposing Governor William Bligh in the Rebellion of 26 January 1808. Canberra: National
Library of Australia.

Atkinson, A. 1984. " A New John Macarthur ". The Push from the Bush.

No.17 April. pp. 43-54.

Atkinson, A. 1990. " The Little Revolution in New South Wales ". The International History
Review. Vol XII. No. 1. February. pp. 65-75.

Barnard, M. 1976 (1962). A History of Australia. 2nd ed.

Melbourne: Angus and Robertson Publishers.

Buckley, K. and Wheelwright, T. 1988. No Paradise For Workers: Capitalism and the
Common People in Australia 1788-1914. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Clark, C. M. H. 1950. Select Documents in Australian History 1788-1850. Sydney: Angus
and Robertson.

Clark, C.M.H. 1978 (1962). A History of Australia. 3 Vols, Vol. 1. Melbourne:
Melbourne University Press.

Ellis, M. H. 1963. " The Great Rum Rebellion Debate ". The Bulletin. Feb.

pp. 22-24.

Evatt, H.V. 1971 (1938). Rum Rebellion. Melbourne: Lloyd O'Neil Pty.Ltd.

Scott, E. (ed) 1988 (1933). Cambridge History of the British Empire: Australia. Vol 7.
Part 1.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, R. 1992 (1965). Concise History of Australia.

St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Weatherburn, H. (Compl.). 1996. Australian Colonial History 1788-1860 Documents.

As supplied by university.


Online Reference:  
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~johnthorpe64/Rum_Rebellion.html