Tag Archives: William Balmain

NSW History Week – Day 3

Military mayhem in 1796

In support of NSW History Week 2022, here is the third of five stories that formed the basis of my research for my novel More Than I Ever Had. This book is based on the true story of Theophilus Feutrill, who enlisted in the New South Wales Corps in 1789 in Birmingham.

In February 1796, Theophilus Feutrill was one of four people whose name was on an arrest warrant issued by the Governor of New South Wales, John Hunter. If found guilty of the charges, the men named would be “obliged to answer for it, most probably with their lives.”

What were the circumstances that lead to this arrest warrant being issued? And, could Theo Feutrill, and the three other privates whose names were on the arrest warrants, really be the masterminds behind what happened, or where they just the scapegoats?

When John Hunter took over as Governor of New South Wales in September 1795, he knew he had a tough job ahead of him. The settlement was largely dependent on rum as currency and much at the mercy of the monopolistic trading practices of the military hierarchy and other officials. He complained in harsh terms to the Duke of Portland (one of the three Secretaries of State, who Hunter reported to) about the quality of the military members:

“…I should feel myself deficient in that duty which I owe to his Majesty’s service in this part of the world were I not to take a liberty which I have no reason to believe your Grace will be offended at—I mean, in remarking that the manner in which this corps has, since employed upon this service, been recruited does in a great measure weaken the effect or service which we would expect to derive from the assistance of the military. Soldiers from the Savoy,* and other characters who have been considered as disgraceful to every other regiment in his Majesty’s service, have been thought fit and proper recruits for the New South Wales Corps, which, in my humble opinion, my Lord, should have been composed of the very best and most orderly dispositions. They are sent here to guard and to keep in obedience to the laws, when force may be requisite, a set of the worst, the most atrocious characters that ever disgraced human nature; and yet we find amongst those safeguards men capable of corrupting the heart of the best disposed, and often superior in every species of infamy to the most expert in wickedness amongst the convicts. Our stores, provisions, and granaries must be intrusted (sic) to the care of those men: what security can we have in the hands of such people?”

*The Savoy was the name of the prison which housed military offenders.

At the time, Governor Hunter was approaching the age of sixty. Those who supported him were significantly younger: Captain Paterson, the commander of the Corps was forty; Captain John Macarthur, Inspector of Public Works, was twenty-eight. No others were older than Paterson. In the absence of a free press where independent commentary might have reached those back in London, the Duke of Portland relied not only on dispatches from Hunter, but he was also being petitioned by the likes of the ambitious John Macarthur, who held little back in his criticisms of the administration.

Governor Hunter’s leadership was tested following an event which occurred on 5 February 1796, and is considered to be the catalyst for the Duke of Portland to eventually recall him to England and replace him as Governor. In a letter from Governor Hunter to the Duke of Portland dated 10 August 1796 (which was not acknowledged by Portland until more than a year later on 31 August 1797), Hunter outlines an event which he describes as an ‘outrage’. An abridged version of his report is below:

“Statement of the Case of John Baughan.

John Baughan…foreman of the carpenters working at Sydney, and a private soldier of the New South Wales Corps, (also a carpenter), had some dispute when formerly working together… This dispute, it appeared, had not subsided in the min of the soldier, and was probably not wholly forgot by the other.

…One day when sentinel over a storehouse, knowing that Baughan was at work in a house some distance from his post, (the Private) set his arms down against the wall of the store, and seeing a man whom he knew standing on the outside of the building in which Baughan was at work, entered into a conversation with him, of which Baughan was the subject, and which much abuse was bestowed, (and)… meant for Baughan (to) (over)hear.

Baughan went out at the back door unperceived, and seeing the soldier without his arms, went to his post, where he found the musquet, which he took up and carried to the guard-house, and delivered to the Serjeant (sic) of the guard. The soldier was, of course, taken notice of and relieved, being without his arms.

The next day, 5th February, at half-past nine o’clock in the forenoon, the whole of the corps off duty at this place assembled, and in the most public and tumultuous manner proceeded to the dwelling of John Baughan, broke open his gates, doors, and windows, entered his house, chopped the corner-posts of it, broke his bedsteads and bedding, chairs, window-frames, drawers, chests, and, in short, completely demolished everything within his possession to a considerable amount, for the man had, by great labour and industry, built himself a neat house, and had it well furnished.

Upon their first approach, having had a few minutes’ notice, he armed himself with a loaded gun and defended himself by threats for some time, but their numbers were so many that they surrounded his paling which inclosed (sic) the house, which some tore down and entered on the opposite side to that which he endeavoured to defend, came behind him, secured and threw him down, with his face to the ground, whilst one held an axe over his neck, and swore if he offered to stir he would chop the head from his body. During the time he remained in this situation they completed the ruin of his whole property, to the very great terror of the man’s wife, after which they went off cheering, as if something meritorious had been effected, and marched in a body cross the parade before their commanding officer’s house.

After so daring an attack, in the open day, upon the dwelling-house of an inhabitant, and in direct defiance of all law, civil or military, they could only be considered as in a state of mutiny. I immediately issued in Public Orders the paper No. 2.”

Public Orders Paper #2 is reproduced below:

Government and General Order.  5th February, 1796.

“The very riotous manner in which the soldiers have conducted themselves this morning, and the very unwarrantable liberty they have thought proper to take in destroying the dwelling-house of John Baughan, is so flagrant a crime against the laws established in this colony that nothing but the want of proof to substantiate who the principal actors in this disgraceful business were could possibly prevent their being immediately tried for so glaring an offence against the peace of the colony.

The Governor thinks it necessary to assure the soldiers that he considers their conduct upon this occasion to have been disgraceful to the character of a British soldier, and that he did hope to have found men amongst them who would have had pride enough to have stood forward and pointed out the ringleaders of so mutinous a conduct, for in no other light can it be considered than that of mutiny when the military assemble in such numbers unknown to their officers, who are at all times ready to listen to any complaints they may have to make, and to see that agreeable to common justice they are redressed. If the soldiers expect that the Governor or any of the officers in this settlement can hereafter consider them as…meriting the honorable appellation of British troops, it must be by their bringing forward the ringleaders or advisers of this disgraceful conduct, in order that the stigma may be wiped away by such worthless characters being brought to trial for this shameful conduct.”

The reception of the Public Orders and mood of the soldiers is indicated by Governor Hunter in his letter to the Duke of Portland:

“But as an alteration in the ration had at that very time been ordered, I think it necessary to observe that their temper at the moment was so violent that they positively refused to take it unless they were served all flour, instead of part flour and part corn, a desire which could not be complied with without manifest injustice to others, and also insisted upon being paid short-allowance money for the time they were on short ration, which they say Governor Phillip had promised them. This last demand I must request your Grace’s instructions upon.”

Governor Hunter met with the commander of the Corps, Captain William Paterson on 6 February and wrote to him the next day advising his change of heart (wisely) in wanting to address the soldiers directly. He couched his decision that to address them directly “would be a condescention on my part which their violent and unsoldierlike conduct does not entitle them to from me.” He goes on to say to Paterson: 

“I must declare to you, sir, that the conduct of this part of the New South Wales Corps has been,…the most violent and outrageous that was ever heard of by any British regiment whatever, and I shall consider every step they may go father in aggravation as rebellion against his Majesty’s government and authority, of which the most early notice shall be taken, and those concerned be in due time obliged to answer for it, probably with their lives.”

As previously mentioned, the Duke of Portland did not respond to Governor Hunter on this matter for more than a year, leaving the governor to deal with this without his support. The governor did, however, have the support of Doctor William Balmain who (without legal training) held the position of Judge-Advocate. From the military side, Captain John Macarthur represented the interests of the NSW Corps.

After the attack on his home, John Baughan, fearing further retribution, declined to identify those involved or to pursue the matter. Dr Balmain ‘proffered’ legal advice (some historians considered Balmain threatened Baughan with obstruction of justice should he not progress the matter ). After some days, four names were eventually given up. When the governor issued the arrest warrants, the military was further enraged at Balmain’s “shamefully malevolent interference in the affairs of the Corps”. One of the warrants was for the arrest of Theophilus Feutrill.

As the military were responsible for enacting the arrest warrants, Captain John Macarthur approached the governor and stalled the process. Thus began a test of strength between the civil and military authorities. As Theophilus fretted over his fate—he was facing potential execution if found guilty—a series of letters was exchanged between Judge Advocate Balmain (representing the civil authority) and Captain John Macarthur (representing the military). Tempers frayed and insults given to the point that Balmain told Macarthur he was “a base rascal and an atrocious liar and villain”. Balmain then challenged Macarthur to a duel, which was subsequently withdrawn.

Captain Macarthur approached the Governor in the name of the Corps and was “expressive of their contrition, their sincere concern for what had happened, promising at the same time that they would endeavour by their future conduct to wipe away the odium which this recent instance of disorder and want of respect for the laws, the peace, and order of the settlement had brought upon them; they also agreed to indemnify the sufferer for his loss.” Upon receiving this message from Macarthur, and by the personal petition of the sufferer, John Baughan, the governor ordered the warrants to be withdrawn as “the consequences would otherwise most probably have been fatal to some.”

Peace was restored, but the Duke of Portland saw Hunter’s capitulation as weakness in his leadership.

John Hunter was recalled to London in a stern dispatch from Portland dated 5 November 1799. The withdrawal was acknowledged by Hunter on 20 April 1800, and he handed over the government to Lieutenant-Governor King on 28 September.

Why was Theophilus Feutrill’s name included on the arrest warrant? The Governor wanted the members of the military to come forward and give up the names of the ring leaders. But it appears unlikely that a private soldier would have the compelling presence or authority to whip up “all off-duty military members” to such an action. Was he, and the other privates listed just scapegoats, or were they more involved? The records are silent, but it is easy to imagine the relief he and his wife Ann would have felt upon hearing the warrants were withdrawn.

**

‘More Than I Ever Had’, based on the true story of Theophilus Feutrill, is available from independent booksellers in Sydney and Amazon.

The Baughan Affair

In 1796, Theophilus Feutrill’s name appeared on an arrest warrant issued by the Governor of New South Wales. If found guilty, Theo could be executed. But will it be Theo or the Governor whose life is on the line?

**

What you need to know is that civil and military tensions in the new penal colony of New South Wales were high from the outset—right from the first days of Europeans arriving in 1788.

In those days, the key players were Governor Arthur Phillip on the ‘civil’ side—charged with responsibility for the new settlement—and Major Robert Ross on the ‘military’ side—who was appointed lieutenant-governor of New South Wales in 1786. Phillip and Ross arrived in Sydney Cove together in January 1788 on the First Fleet.

With Phillip making all the decisions about the location of settlement and the rules governing the new colony, Major Ross was responsible for the New South Marines under his command.

Think for a moment. You are located in unfamiliar bushland, in a far-away foreign country, with no buildings or crops, and only the livestock and supplies brought with you on the ship to sustain you. Someone else is responsible for deciding where you’ll live. How things will run. Another supply ship is not due for maybe over a year away. It would take enormous confidence in that person to blindly submit to all their decisions. Your life is certainly in their hands. Major Robert Ross with his military experience was not that person to put his life in another’s hands. Almost immediately, Phillip and Ross clashed. Historians note Ross’s long and detailed criticisms of Phillip’s decisions and his government. Amongst other grievances, such as settlement location, Ross opposed Phillip’s schemes for organizing the convicts and refused to allow the military officers to help supervise the prisoners.

Ross began to actively work against Governor Phillip, making his administration task more difficult. Phillip endured this for over two years, but in March 1790, he saw an opportunity to remove the key source of friction from Sydney Cove, and sent Ross to take charge of Norfolk Island. Whilst this finally gave Phillip some breathing space, the British government had already decided to recall the fractious Major Ross and his New South Wales Marines, and a replacement military presence was already on its way—the New South Wales Corps—which included Private Theophilus Feutrill as part of the Second Fleet.

A double-edged sword

Governor Phillip must have welcomed Major Ross’s replacement, Major Francis Grose, and the New South Wales Corps with a high level of optimism. Certainly, Grose was reported to have been unassertive and easy-going, and appeared to give Phillip little cause for complaint.

However, Governor Phillip had to return to Britain in December 1792 to receive medical treatment and never saw Sydney Cove again. In his absence, Major Grose assumed control of New South Wales. The military was now in charge of the new colony.

Upon assuming command, Grose, amongst other things, replaced civil magistrates with military officers and appointed Lieutenant John Macarthur inspector of public works. The steps he took appear designed to reduce his own burdens and align his supporters more closely with the administration of the settlement. Some historians have suggested that at this time Macarthur became the de facto ruler of New South Wales, such was his influence with the governor.

Under Grose, the lot of the military improved, with increased rations, improved housing and land grants, with convicts paid by the government to work ‘private’ land. Grose encouraged officer farmer pursuits, contravening orders from Britain that the land holders had to pay for convicts working their land.

Soon, many of the civil and military staff directed more of their efforts to improving their personal gains at the expense of their duties. Trade, especially in liquor which became like a currency, became substantial, and Grose’s policies enabled the military to secure a hold over the colony, to exploit it for their own interests.

But then, Grose returned to England in December 1794. It was at a time when New South Wales was still importing essential requirements, but the colony was more sustainable and the spectre of famine no longer hung over the settlement. With Grose’s policies improving the quality of the settlement, Captain William Paterson—who assumed the role of administrator—maintained the status quo until Governor John Hunter arrived (he assumed office in September 1795). By this time, policies entrenched from military rule, which were impacting on the Treasury’s purse back in London, were going to be difficult to wind back.

Governor Hunter had a job ahead of him if he was to bring the military to heel—and to protect settlers from exorbitant prices charged by officers for goods. Hunter didn’t have a loyal public service. He didn’t have an obedient military. Orders arriving from London were erratic and some could take over a year to receive and implement.

Hunter also had other forces working against him. In the absence of a free press, Hunter’s superior, the Duke of Portland (one of three secretaries of state in London), relied not only on Hunter’s reports, but correspondence from residents in the colony, such as those from Lieutenant John Macarthur, who had his own agenda. Macarthur, as inspector of public works, and as a recipient of significant land grants, was in a position of influence. While Macarthur had the governor’s ear, the supply of convicts to officer farmers on the government’s purse continued, as Hunter became convinced that government farming was wasteful and inefficient. But Hunter soon realised Macarthur’s ambitions and later told the Duke of Portland that ‘nothing short of the full power of the Governor’ would satisfy the man.

Despite steps taken by Governor Hunter and with the constant communication from John Macarthur, the Duke of Portland continued to be unimpressed by his performance, but it is Hunter’s handling of the ‘Baughan affair’ which sets the tone for the rest of his career—and Theophilus Feutrill is right in the thick of this.

A “most violent and outrageous” conduct

It all started from a long-running feud between two ex-convicts: John Baughan, carpenter by trade and millwright, and an un-named man, carpenter-turned soldier, who were both being transported to America on the Mercury when it was overtaken by a convict mutiny. They were both re-captured, and sent to Australia onboard the Friendship as part of the First Fleet. Baughan was described as ‘an ingenious man’ who built two fully functioning mills, which helped feed the colony. He was rewarded through a grant of a small lease near Dawes Point, and given the role of Foreman of carpenters. He was also described as being ‘sullen and vindictive.’

On 4 February 1796, the carpenter-turned-soldier in the feud with Baughan was on sentinel duty at a storehouse near where Baughan was working. The soldier set down his arms against the wall of the store and left his post, to speak with a man he knew outside of the building in which Baughan was working. Much abuse was said about Baughan, intentionally loud enough for him to hear. Baughan slipped away unseen to where the soldier was meant to be on duty, and found his abandoned musket. Baughan took this to the guard-house, delivering it to the sergeant of the guard. The soldier was arrested and relieved of duty as a result.

Baughan’s action caused an outrage with the military, and it was determined to exact its revenge. The next day, a large group of military members stormed John Baughan’s neat, well tendered cottage and the mob broke gates, doors, windows, entered his house, chopped the corner posts off it, broke his bedsteads, bedding, chairs, window frames, drawers, chests…demolished everything. Members grabbed Baughan and threw him down with his face to the ground, whilst one held an axe over his neck and swore if he offered to stir he would chop the head from his body. At the end of the rampage, the soldiers went off cheering, as if something ‘meritorious had been effected’ and marched in a body cross the parade before their commanding officer’s house.

While David Collins noted in his diary that mostly ex-convicts-turned-soldiers were involved in the mob, Governor Hunter wrote to the Duke of Portland that it was ‘all off-duty members’. Hunter considered from the military’s actions that they were in a state of mutiny, and issued in Public Orders the paper no. 2. In the paper, the governor hopes to have found men amongst them who would have pride enough to have stood forward and pointed out the ringleaders of so mutinous conduct, for in no other light can it be considered than that of mutiny when the military assemble in such numbers unknown to their officers and by their bringing forward the ringleaders or advisers of this disgraceful conduct, in order that the stigma may be wiped away by such worthless characters being brought to trial for this shameful conduct.

As a smart man, John Baughan just wanted the affair over, and refused to identify the perpetrators. His wife, who witnessed the destruction, was fearful for her husband’s life should he pursue it.

Perhaps if it ended there…

As magistrate, Dr William Balmain visited the Baughans when he heard of the rampage. He threatened John Baughan with ‘obstruction of justice’ charges if he didn’t pursue the matter, and offered protection to him should he give evidence. After some days, four names were eventually given up. When the governor issued the arrest warrants, the military was further enraged at Balmain’s shamefully malevolent interference in the affairs of the Corps. One of the warrants was for the arrest of Theophilus Feutrill.

As the military were responsible for the enacting of arrest warrants, Lieutenant John Macarthur approached the governor and stalled the process. Thus began a test of strength between the civil and military authorities. As Theophilus fretted over his fate—he was facing potential execution if found guilty—a series of letters was exchanged between Judge Advocate Balmain (representing the civil authority) and Lieutenant John Macarthur (representing the military). Tempers frayed and insults given to the point that Balmain told Macarthur he was a base rascal and an atrocious liar and villain. Balmain then challenged Macarthur to a duel.

Who would prevail, and will John Baughan persist with the charges? What of Theo’s fate? What does Governor Hunter do that has the Duke of Portland reaching for his quill to issue new orders?

**

Learn the outcome of the 1796 arm wrestle between the civil and military authorities. More Than I Ever Had is a novel based on a true story by Rae Blair, and is available world-wide on Amazon Kindle in eBook and paperback formats.

Image: Joseph Millson as Major Robert Ross in Banished TV-series