|
Hume and Hovell The Sydney Morning Herald 12 July 1924 |
|
My
letter never mentioned the school children of Yass. I know no more than Mr.
Wilson himself what Australian history (if any) the Yass school children are
taught. Nor
did I ever claim that Hovell’s Journal had been in the possession of the
Royal Australian Historical Society. Mr. Wilson cannot deny that the Journal
was printed by that society in its volume for 1921. Mr.
Wilson says I am the only person who has expressed doubts about Hovell's
field books. I am, however, by no means the first member of the Royal
Australian Historical Society who believes that the journal presented to the
Mitchell and printed by the R.A.H.S. is not Hovell's own original copy
written by himself when on that memorable Journey. Even
Mr. Adrian, Mr. Wilson's ally in this discussion, expresses the opinion that
it is a mere transcript, whilst Mr. A. Jose says it a copy made after
Hovell's return (March "Forum," which I saw for the first time this
morning.) It
is rather amusing to learn that Mr. Wilson "fears that an examination of
the letters of the Macquarie period would shock me!" Let me hasten to
allay the kindly gentleman's fears. I have some little acquaintance with old
time letters and MS. dating back to 1547, gained chiefly whilst doing
research work in the West of England and at the British Museum Manuscript
Room. Some
few of my own small collection of early Australian letters and papers were
exhibited at the recent historical exhibition, run by the R.A.H.S., and
elicited a request from the Mitchell Library that they be donated or left to
that treasure house. Even Mr. Wilson will see that neither the spelling nor
the grammar of so recent a period as the Macquarie would be liable to shock
me. Both
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Adrian deprecate my remarks on the spelling and the
grammar of Hovell's Journal. In my opinion, Captain Hovell was a better
educated man than the journal indicates. In this I may be wrong, of course,
but it seems to me that a man who could write correctly some years after the
expedition could surely have done so when writing his Journal in 1824-6, not
1823-4 as mentioned by Mr. Adrian. (Mr. Wilson would call that just another
error of the linotype operator.) Unfortunately
when I saw the journals, I did not compare the writing of good autograph
letters of Captain Hovell's with the manuscript journal. Until this has been
done, I am inclined to believe that Hovell was educated, and that the Journal
under discussion is either an expansion of notes, or a copy, and not Hovell's
own original journal. Mr.
Adrian, in his letter, says I do not sufficiently distinguish between first
and second hand evidence. Yet he prefers to place the evidence of Bland, who
never went on the expedition, before that of three men who accompanied the
explorers. I
would like to state that I make no attempt to belittle Dr. Bland, In fact, I
have always had rather, an admiration for the literary doctor, but I cannot
allow his evidence of what took place on the journey to outweigh the combined
evidence of Boyd, Angel, and Fitzpatrick - three of the men who went every
yard of the expedition. Their evidence would, of course, be first band. Bland's merely a re-hash of Hovell's. Again,
Mr. Adrian says that my quotation from David Reid's letter to James Gormley was vague third-hand evidence. From that letter
we gather the following: 1.
David Reid was at the now famous banquet in 1853. 2.
David Reid there heard Mr. Taaffe defend the absent
Hume when Hovell claimed the honours at the
banquet. 3.
David Reid wrote this to James Gormley. If a letter
written by a person who was actually present and heard the defence is not first-hand evidence, would Mr. Adrian mind
telling me what is? But Mr. Adrian calls this "vague third-hand
evidence." Conversely,
he considers as "virtually firsthand evidence" an account of the
banquet which appeared in a Tasmanian paper on February 4, 1854. Yet the
banquet took place at Geelong on December 16, 1853. (Professor Scott is my
authority to both dates.) By
the way, Professor Scott quotes in full two letters, one from Hovell to Hume,
the other from Hume to Hovell, both dated January,
1853, and plainly written after the banquet! There must be a mistake
somewhere. Either
Professor Scott is wrong in the above dates, or his copies of the letters
lent him by Mr. Palmer Roberts are wrong, or Hovell's originals are fakes.
See vol. VII. R.A.H.S. Journal, pp. 301, 302, 303, 304:
I am afraid this will vex Mr. Alex. Wilson; how he hates one to use the
microscope! Mr.
A. C. Roberts, in your issue of July 6 (?) says he had the original of
Hovell's speech. The MS. of the speech is of little importance; what really
matters is what he actually added on the spur of the moment to what he
originally meant to say. Anyone who has worked through the files of
newspapers of the Fifties will remember the verbose lengthy speeches that
were customary. It
was, I believe, the usual custom then for speakers to hand over a written
speech to the local reporter, either to save his time, or to secure a fair
report, or, as not infrequently happened, to secure any report at all if the
speaker became muddled owing to too much banquetting.
It is highly likely that the Geelong paper's report (if it could be produced)
was a copy of Hovell's written speech. David
Reid and others, who were present at the banquet, beard Hovell's spoken
speech, so did the reporters of the Melbourne papers, and they agree in
saying that in it Hovell claimed the honours of the
overland Journey of 1824-5. I
would like to assure "A.C.R." that Mrs. Roberts' gift of the
journal and other documents to the Mitchell is much appreciated by all lovers
of history. The greater number of original documents or genuine copies lodged
there the easier it is to do research work. Now
we want the original of Hume's journal, and, then we may be able to get at
the truth better. I am, etc., Yass, July 10. Mary B. J. Yeo. |