The Discovery of the Brisbane River. John Oxley's Missing Journal of 1823. BY NICHOLAS LOCKYEK, C.B.E., I.S.O. (Read before the Society, 28th April, 1919). In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 21st and 22nd September, 1910, there appeared a contribution by Mr. A. Meston, of Sydney (who I understand is a surveyor), the subject of which was—" Surveyor Hoddle's Field Books," in which was contained a description of a survey in 1823 of portion of the Queensland coast, including Moreton Bay and the Brisbane River. It is claimed that Hoddle Avas Avith Oxlej'^ in the Mermaid and that these field books contained an independent record of that expedition. ^ As is well known, Oxley's original report and journals of the above surveys haA^e hitherto remained undiscovered, and the only surviving record of one of the most interest­ ing incidents in the history of early Queensland is a reprint of Oxley's report and a report in greater detail in some respects by John Uniacke, both of which appeared in Barron Field's book on New South Wales, published in 1825. In the first of his two articles in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Mr. Meston states that the Mr. Robert Hoddle, above referred to, arrived in New South Wales from South Africa in 1823. and was appointed as an Assistant Surveyor on 8th January of that year, and it is also claimed that Mr. Hoddle made extensive surA^eys in the vicinity of Moreton Bay; this was also in the year 1823 ; that he became Surveyor-General of Victoria, and in July, 1853, retired on a pension of £1,000 per annum, AH'hich he drew to the date of his death in 1881. : On the following day, in his second article, Mr. Meston states that " Robert Hoddle came out to New South Wales, under engagement as a schoolmaster in the ship New Caledonia in 1820. He entered the Survey Department at Sydney, in 1824, and was appointed Acting Deputy Surveyor in 1829. On 14th September, 1840, he received ai retiring allowance of £800." Here are two entirely distinct Robert Hoddles, and Mr. Meston seems to have left his readers to choose, according to their fancy, which one 47 of these two Avas responsible for the field books, the sub­ ject of his articles. Mr. Meston had the good fortune to unearth these books in the Sydney Survey Office, and after quoting copiously from them he concludes by saying: " Remarkable is the fact that Hoddle nowhere in these books makes the slightest reference to Oxley, the leader of the expedition, and mentions no one individually except Uniacke and Penson (the master of the Mermaid), and the mate of the vessel. He writes as if he were the leader of the party. Hoddle apparently takes all the bearings, gives all the orders, and ' bosses ' the whole business. Thence comes the natural query : Are these the field books of Hoddle or Oxley ? The spelling in these books is incredible in a man specially imported as a schoolmaster, at a period Avhen the qualifi­ cations of a public teacher were certainly quite as good as at the present time, if not higher. The grammar is also imperfect, and Hoddle Avas a man of considerable scholastic attainments Avhen he became Acting Deputy Surveyor in four years after his arrival in Sydney and Deputy Surveyor in the following year, and if these field books were Avritten by Oxley, then the no reference any­ where to Hoddle, or by name to any: companion except Uniacke and Penson, would be singular except to recall Oxley's peculiarity in omitting all credit to anybody but himself. This is the argument that might be used, were it not that Hoddle's story is different from that of Oxley and Uniacke, and that as a plain surveyor he had not the right to make comments on his official chief, or any of the party, and the fact that all the books are in Hoddle's oAvn hand­ writing gives the whole question an incontrovertible finality." Briefly, Mr. Meston pins his faith to the school­ master, Avhose scholastic attainments were considerable and whose grammar was " imperfect " and spelling "incredible." He has discarded the Hoddle who laid out Melbourne, and he has identified the schoolmaster's hand- Avriting. Experienced judges Avith good reason rarely place too great reliance on the identification of handwriting by casual experts. These field books were rediscovered by Mr. Thomas Welsby, who quotes extracts from them in his book " The Discoverers of the Brisbane River," published in 1913,* but Welsby does not follow Meston's lead inasmuch as he adopts as the author another Hoddle and calls him John, and not Robert, which adds to the confusion. Mr. Welsby concludes these field books afford " undeniable proof that Hoddle was Avith Oxley in 1823. also that he journeyed •Brisbane, H.J. Diddams & Co. Dedicated to the Historical Society • of Queensland. 48 with Oxley on his voyage up the river named afterwards the Brisbane, as far as Termination Point." He further disagrees with Meston by maintaining "that Oxley's narrative contained no mention of Uniacke," which suggests the regret that Mr. Welsby did not refer to Oxley's report. These field books which it is variously claimed have been written by Robert Hoddle, who arrived in 1820, by Robert Hoddle, who arrived in 1823, and by John Hoddle who does not seem to have had any arrival, are relied upon by both Mr. Meston and by Mr. Welsby for the purpose of indicting Oxley of ungenerous treatment of Parsons, Finnegan and Pamphlet, who jointly first discovered the Brisbane River. It is in these field books that due justice is extended to them, and Mr. Welsby expresses his thankful­ ness " after the lapse of ninety years to know that I have been enabled to Avrite what can be regarded as truthful, the interesting story of these shipwrecked souls who,, if they were convicts or ticket-of-leave men, proved what Britishers could do. ... In one number (of the field books) a clear and distinct account is given of the finding of the wanderers, the wording being of sincerity and earnest­ ness occasioned by such a discovery." There can be little doubt but that both Mr. Meston and Mr. Welsby have drawn the most erroneous deductions from the evidence before them, and have thus missed making^ a most interesting discovery of a long sought for precious record. I have not been able to visit Sydney for the purpose of examining these field books, but there can be no doubt whatever they will prove to be John Oxley's missing journal, of which Sir Hugh Nelson said : " It has disappeared, never, it is feared, to be recovered, but there is not a shadow of doubt that in that journal would have been found every significant detail connected Avith the exploration day by day of the bay and river." The most absurd feature in this romance is that the least discernment should have led to the identification of the true authorship. The books may be copies,—which I very much doubt,—but if they are copies, the originals were vn-itten by Oxley. It can be said Avith confidence that the hand which is responsible for their contents is identical Avith that which wrote Oxley's report dated 10th January, 1824. Whilst reading the brief extracts which have so far appeared in print I could not help but feeling that they were holding out signals appealing for recognition of their true import. The numerous proofs of their real authorship are so obvious by even casual comparison, that it is almost 49 superfluous to quote the sentences and phrases which are identical Avith those which may be found throughout Oxley's report. The folloAving illustrations may, hoAvever, be found interesting to those who may not have the opportunity of personally comparing the originals. The pages quoted refer to Oxley's Report contained in Barron Field's book on New South Wales published in 1825, and to those in Welshy's book in which he quotes extracts from the "Hoddle" Field Books. OXLEY, page 16. " HODDLE," page 63. '• The appearance of the country, " The slowness of the current and the slowness of the current even at depth of water induce me to con­ ebb tide, and the depth of water, clude that the river will be found induced me to conclude that the navigable for vessels of burden to river will be found navigable for a very considerable distance, prob­ vessels of burthen to much great ably at least fifty miles." •distance probably not less than fifty miles." - OXLEY, page 17. "HODDLE," page 63. " .Justify me in entertaining a " I cannot help entertaining a -strong belief that the source of strong belief that this is no river the river will not be found in a having its source in mountain mountainous country but rather it streams. on the contrary, my flows from some lake." opinion is strongly in favor of its deriving its source in an interior lake." •OXLEY, page 17. "HODDLE," page 63. " It is by far the largest fresh " It is by far the largest river in water river in New South Wales New South Wales and promises to and promises to be of the utmost be of the utmost importance to importance to the Colony, as it the Colony from the very fertile affords communication with the country it passes through, afford­ -sea to a vast extent of country, a ing the means of water communi­ great portion of which appeared cation with the sea to a vast extent to me capable of raising the of country, the greater portion of richest productions of the tropics.