stuart, kekwick and head - the character of the men

Page | 1

Stuart, Kekwick & Head:

the character of the men.

John McDouall Stuart, wearing the Gold Medal

presented to him by the Royal Geographical Society, London.

Courtesy of the John McDouall Stuart Society

Page | 2

Introduction

John McDouall Stuart, an explorer-surveyor born in Scotland, led six exploration expeditions in Australia’s

interior. He had widespread experience in the bush. His most successful (and final) expedition was in 1861-62,

when he crossed the continent through the Centre, returning without loss of life.

As a result of his explorations, the riddle of the geographical nature of the centre of Australia was solved.

Partly because of his discoveries, the western border of South Australia was moved from the 132 degree east

longitude to 129 degree east longitude7, 27 and control of the Northern Territory was transferred to South

Australia. In 1872, 10 years after his last expedition, The Overland Telegraph Line, linking Adelaide to the world

via Darwin, was constructed along his route; the original Central Australia Railway (Ghan) from Adelaide to

Alice Springs followed a similar route. South Australia then established settlement on the north coast of

Australia and vast areas of the north were opened up for pastoral and mineral development.

However, he remains an enigmatic figure and his explorations are the least well known of Australia’s eminent

explorers. In 1962 as part of the centenary of Stuart’s explorations, his biographer, Mona Stuart Webster,

addressed the Royal Geographical Society, South Australian Branch (RGS) on Stuart’s character and personal

qualities.1 In 1967, TGH Strehlow’s ‘Comments on the Journals of John McDouall Stuart’2 was published. These

two analyses have since then served as the reference points for Stuart’s personal characteristics.

Now, at the sesquicentenary of Stuart reaching the centre of the continent, it may be valuable to examine the

subject again – and to broaden the field, if possible.

John McDouall Stuart had a total of 33 companions over his six expeditions, from 1858-62. We know a

reasonable amount of detail about most of the companions on the final expedition, and nothing except the

surname of some who were with him on his first, second, third, fifth and sixth expeditions. We don’t even

know the name of the aboriginal guide on his first expedition.

On Stuart’s 4th Expedition in 1860, William Darton Kekwick and Benjamin Head accompanied him, along with

just 13 horses. With respect to Kekwick and Head, very little recorded material, photographs or images exist to

help form a clear understanding of their characters. As little is widely known about Kekwick and Head, it is

useful to briefly describe their circumstances as well as investigate their characters. Such is not the case for

Stuart. There is much more information about him; his journals provide a good understanding of his character

and there is much of him written by others.

When I was asked to talk about the character of the three men for the Doreen Braitling Memorial Address

during Heritage Week in Alice Springs in April of 2010, I was very reluctant because in my view most of what

might be talked about could only be speculation. That was something I had always told myself I would not do.

My preparatory notes are full of large font red text where I am reminding myself not to speculate. Yet more

and more as I thought about the individuals and not the outcomes of their efforts which are much more

closely studied, I felt myself drawn to speculation. Speculation can be worthwhile; it can let us come to views

of people or situations which may not be possible from the bare facts alone. I will therefore allow myself a few

exceptions to my rule about avoiding it.

By way of demonstration about speculation, let’s consider how other notable explorers used indigenous

people as guides. Fifty years before Stuart’s time, Samuel Hearne and David Thompson were famous English

explorers in Canada who did accept, use and rely on local people’s support. Stuart did not do this, but it was

not because it was the norm of the day to ignore locals. Livingstone and Stanley in Africa; Lewis and Clarke in

North America and other organised explorers sought and relied upon local knowledge. Stuart only briefly used

local knowledge, and I can’t find a good reason why he did not use it more. I can find minor reasons, but not

reasons of significance. To go further in an attempt to find out why is where the speculation starts – and I stop.

Page | 3

I consider myself more historian than speculator. If you want a romanticised or fabricated perspective, you

won’t be getting it here. Novelists do that. What historians can do is become increasingly knowledgeable

about the contexts in which particular actions, including the writing of various words, took place. Inga

Clendinnen has said

that the historian’s job is to unscramble what actually happened from whatever that current myth

might be, and to enquire into what the myth-makers are up to – not to play at myth making too.3

So, I did reflect on the proposal, and in the end accepted it because I recognised a genuine desire to get to

know these men. What motivated and inspired them? How could they do what they did? These are legitimate

questions. What would we see if Stuart, Kekwick and Head strode into the room? What sort of men are they?

After being intimately involved with Stuart topics for about 10 years, I have to say that we don’t really know!

However, these observations might help.

To understand Stuart, Kekwick and Head, you have to put yourself in the moment; put yourself in the times in

which they lived. When investigating the nature and characteristics of explorers, I believe we need to look at

things through their eyes, their morals, their beliefs and understandings, and their circumstances –in other

words, context. Customs and behaviours of the day were quite different to those of our times. They did not

have internal combustion engines, air conditioning, insecticides, or GPS’s. It was a hard life by our standards.

The security and comforts of the way in which we currently live might be our greatest barrier to understanding

how it was for other people of other times. People really did think and act differently 150 years ago. And that

is why I do not wish to speculate, why I do not wish to put my perspectives on these individuals. It would rob

them of their intrinsic value.

For example, a major difference between then and now was the ‘master- servant’ relationship between the

‘educated gentleman’ and the hired labour. Conformity, respectful language, loyalty & devotion to tasks were

the norms of the day. Understanding this helps us to explain the nature of the behaviours of the men. Early in

Stuart’s last expedition he sacked Jeffries for insubordination. This would appear to be tough, and

impermissible under today’s legislation. But tough men, just like today, seem to be successful men, and Stuart

was highly committed to success, having practised for this event for 25 years. Absolute obedience is one of the

first rules of any expedition. This is done to ensure safety and success. The men had signed an agreement to

do as they were told. An alternative to this procedure did not exist – even though it might in today’s times. So,

in my view anyone who today opines that Stuart acted unfairly has demonstrated a complete

misunderstanding of context.

I have read:

that everyone tries to define this thing called Character. It's not hard. Character is doing what's right

when nobody's looking.4

Normally when we use the word character we use it as a noun and it means the description of a person's

attributes, traits, or abilities. General Norman Schwartzkopf, known as ‘Stormin’ Norman’, was a USA Army

officer who in the 1990’s was Commander of Coalition forces in the Gulf War of 1991. He said:

I admire men of character, and I judge character not by how men deal with their superiors, but mostly

how they deal with their subordinates, and that, to me, is where you find out what the character of a

man is. 4

Given that 150 years have passed since Stuart, Kekwick and Head conducted their magnificent European

exploration, it is not easy for someone today to make a judgement on character. However, it is possible to

determine the character of our three subjects in a way similar to that suggested by Schwarzkopf.

Page | 4

In presenting these glimpses of Stuart, Kekwick and Head, I am going to use the words and observations of

those who lived in those times. We will see what the subordinates said of Stuart, as well as his peers and

enemies. They are not my words or interpretations. If I can say, as Charles Darwin did

I have given the evidence to the best of my ability.6

then I will be satisfied.

A prominent landmark: Chambers Pillar.

Discovered on Stuart’s 4th expedition, while accompanied by Kekwick & Head.

Courtesy of R Moore

Page | 5

Benjamin Head

Ben Head in his railway attire

Courtesy of H & P Head

Born in Hayle, Cornwall, Benjamin Head arrived in South Australia in 1854 on the Magdelena. It has been generally accepted that he was 12 years old when he arrived in South Australia. However, recent research6

has demonstrated that he was 20 when he got to South Australia. The 1851 Census from Parish of Phillock, Cornwall, lists Benjamin Head as 17 years old. His age is confirmed by other Cornish records showing he was baptised on 6th April 1834. Records held in South Australia cite his death on March 19th 1897. The Head family says Ben was 60 when he died; the gravestone says 55, but in reality he was 63. Many gaps in his life story have now been filled, and from this we have a small glimpse of Head’s character traits – 113 years later. The immediate Head family, in Adelaide, have only two stories and no significant memorabilia of their Great Great Grandfather. A diary of Ben’s was a generation ago reported to have been given to the State Library of South Australia, but recently it has been discovered that it was sent to Cornwall. When in 1859 John McDouall Stuart sent Kekwick to get more men for his fourth expedition, the Victorian goldfields and advancing pastoralism had gobbled up the labour force. The exception was a giant of a man, who was working on the Chambers run at Moolooloo, in the central Flinders Ranges. Ben Head was not 18 years old or a young man as has been previously told; he was 25 and according to various authors weighed either nearly 18 stone7 or 16 stone.8 In Adelaide he had worked as a moulder’s assistant and he had been working with BH Babbage as a chainman, surveying land for railways. He was one of the first truck shunters in the Adelaide Railway yards. John Chambers met him and liked him; subsequently Chambers had him stock keeping at the Chambers brothers head station, Moolooloo. Ben Head travelled with John McDouall Stuart, William Kekwick and 13 horses to Attack Creek and back to Adelaide in 1860. It has been said9 that Benjamin Head had clear cut features and must have had a fair share of good looks in his youth. The only existing photo of Ben supports this observation. However, K.T. Borrow, an historian (and later

Page | 6

a secretary of the John McDouall Stuart Society) wrote in 1962 suggesting the contrary. A letter of his to Mona Stuart Webster stated that a photograph of Ben:

.....gives a strong impression, if not of abnormality, of at least a peasant like obtuseness.10

WP Auld, a member of Stuart’s sixth expedition of 1861-62, visited Head who late in his life was in hospital while suffering from a lung complaint. A newspaper journalist9 paid a visit while the two were reminiscing. Ben said to the journalist:

Don’t call me Heed, my name is Head, a good west of England name.

What about Stuart as a bushman, asked the journalist.

You could not beat him

said Head emphatically. Then: You could not beat the little fellow, no matter who it might be, he had the instincts of a bushman. However foolish he may have been in town, there is not a man in Australia can say a word against him as a leader in the bush. He knew his way about if any man did. He was a born leader of men; and the sharpest little fellow you would find in a year’s march. There were no flies about Stuart, take my word for that – and Pat’s – and indeed any man who went out with him – he was a born explorer.

Later in the interview Head commented:

As I said before, Stuart was a splendid bushman, and could tell within a foot almost where we were. I never came across the like of him. Whatever he said was law, and bound to be obeyed. He was not always straight in town, but steady enough in the bush.

On Sunday, May 6 1860, Stuart wrote in his diary a special note of approval on the conduct of Kekwick and

Head:

…during this trying time they have exerted themselves to the utmost, and everything has been

done with the greatest alacrity and cheerfulness. Although they have had only two hours’ sleep

during the last two nights there has not been a single word of dissatisfaction from either of them

which is highly gratifying to me. It is indeed a great pleasure to have men that will do their work

without grumbling. 11

We now know how Stuart seemed to disdain adequate rations, but unfortunately Head helped himself to more food than was his due. On July 8th 1860, Stuart weighed the rations and found that since they had been camped at the Bonney (creek) they were again short and he wrote in his diary

…all hope of making the coast is gone, on weighing our rations today I find that we are again short

since we halted here, the man Ben has been making it a regular practise to steal them since he has

been with me, I have caught him several times doing so and all the threats and warnings of the

consequences has no effect upon him, it deters him for a day or two and then it is as bad as ever. I

have been in the habit of reducing our allowance to make up for the loss which has been very hard

upon Kekwick and I, it is quite impossible to stop him, he has helped himself to about double

allowance during the journey.11

It is tempting to wonder why Stuart did not realise big men need more rations. He would have known that big horses consume more. He would have observed intakes and rations on other field trips and while with Sturt. But to have ignored such basic needs is a hallmark of Stuart’s expeditions. Stuart must have been happy to

Page | 7

accept Head’s indiscretions as minor or at least tolerable, which is testament to Head’s value on the expeditions. If Stuart was totally unhappy with him he would not have entertained the notion of him on subsequent expeditions. This is confirmed by the fact that Ben was the first man chosen for the impending 5th journey. He was given the responsibility of the advance party of six men and 20 horses to the Chambers Creek base camp, but his frail state of health - again depending upon who you read,7,8 he was down to 10 stone or even eight stone - prevented him from proceeding; in fact, he never fully recovered. Many of the features Stuart named were later changed for political purposes, but the names Mount Ben and Head Range (both near Oodnadatta) were retained, further demonstrating that he bore Head no grudge. Ben was first married on March 31st 1865 at the Parsonage, Redruth, to Mary Ross. It is noted on his marriage certificate that he was a labourer from Moolooloo; Mary was from Redruth, near Burra, the important copper mining town in South Australia. Where Ben and Mary lived or where Ben worked for the next 10 years remains a mystery. No records can be found to confirm if Mary died during these years. Ben commenced working for the South Australian Railways on the South Eastern Line in 1876. During the next 16 years he was employed as a packer, a guard, porter-in-charge and porter, working from stations and railway lines at Kingston, Bordertown and Naracoorte. Guards working for the South Australian Railways managed the train and its contents, issuing instructions and thereby being in charge of the train’s operation. They were responsible for all the goods, which had to be loaded and unloaded, and the carriages which were to be shunted, both on and off the train. They also had their own ‘office’, the guard’s van at the rear of the train where book work was done between stops and meals were cooked on the wood burning stove. These duties were such that he could not possibly have been illiterate, as has been suggested by some.20 His employment record notes his surname as Heed.6 It was at Kingston that he married again, on this occasion to Mary Anne Green in 1877, describing himself as ‘bachelor’. In later life he developed tuberculosis, was hospitalised for a long while, recovered a little and became a carriage cleaner at Terowie, an important railway town in SA’s mid north. He then retired from the South Australian Railways, having been given £ 93 as recognition for a 20 year length of service. After his retirement from the Railways, Ben started a small grocery business at Petersburg (Peterborough). Late in 1896 he was in hospital in Adelaide suffering from tuberculosis and he died at Peterborough in March 1897.

Ben Head’s grave in the Peterborough, S.A. Cemetery

Courtesy of M Blacker

The Adelaide Observer reported that

a subscription list has been opened by some friends who knew the worth of Head, who was a typical fearless bushman. The Head fund – Sympathy £ 1.9

He had one son and an adopted daughter. Head’s widow, 50 years later, said:

Page | 8

My husband has often been riding through the bush all day, hungry and weak, and laid himself down, praying he would not see the dawn of another day; still they battled their way back to the settled districts. I have heard him speak of his leader in high praise; he was a good man and a born leader of men.7

W. D. Kekwick


William Darton Kekwick came from a Quaker family. He was born in east London, and emigrated with his father and siblings. The family arrived in Adelaide in 1840 on the ‘Warrior’ while William was still 17 years old. His older brother, Daniel, introduced him to James Chambers. Daniel Kekwick was my Great Great Grandfather. I was taught about WD Kekwick and Stuart by my Granny Moore, who was a Kekwick. She instilled in me a sense of awe and reverence about Stuart in particular, and she was obviously proud that her Grand-Uncle was such an integral part of Stuart’s exploration successes. Kekwick had worked with miners, contractors and surveyors in the Burra area. He had been to the Victorian gold diggings and this mining experience was later drawn upon by Stuart. The Government Gazette of 29th May 185113 shows WD Kekwick declaring himself as insolvent - unable to meet his engagement. He was trading as Thompson and Kekwick, storekeeper, Kooringal. Kooringal is now part of the town of Burra, the former important copper mining town in South Australia. Redruth, where Ben Head was first married 14 years after Kekwick’s insolvency, is in the same district. WD Kekwick joined with Stuart on his 3rd expedition as a 38 year old. He remained as Second in Command for the next four trips. He had useful knowledge of botany. Although he did not have scientific training, he assisted the government-appointed naturalist, FG Waterhouse, on the final expedition in preserving plant samples, small birds and insects. On the return journey from the north coast, he grieved when nearly all their collection had to be discarded to lighten the horses’ loads. Stuart comments more frequently on Kekwick’s botanical findings than those of F.G. Waterhouse:

Page | 9

Kekwick has found some new trees and flowers. Kekwick is a keen botanist though lacking in Scientific training (and) must be given credit for some of his findings before they are added to the collection.11

Bean tree (Erythrina vespertilio) found in Central Australia by Stuart, Kekwick & Head, April 20th 1860

Courtesy of R Moore

WD Kekwick was described as a quiet thoughtful gentle man.14 Woodforde, one of the Companions on the fifth and sixth journeys, said of Kekwick:

We are on the best of terms with Mr Stuart and his second in command, who do all in their power for the comfort of the party.7

Kekwick was described as always trustworthy and one who could be left with perfect confidence7,15. He was in charge of many of the details of daily exploration life, but not the leader – Stuart never handed that role to anyone else. Kekwick was the foundation rock on which the last four expeditions were built. He sometimes acted as the go-between if a potential conflict between expedition members arose, such as between Stuart and Waterhouse on the last expedition. He was a man of Christian values – demonstrated by his fervent thanks to his Christian god when he found water after a long, dry spell 16. He was the shepherd of Stuart’s flock, and the anchor. He expressed care and acted out of concern for the individuals and the party. The younger men called him ‘dear old Kekwick’.14 They used to say

Ask Bill Kekwick – he will do it for you.14 There are many instances of Stuart recording his appreciation of Kekwick. At the end of the last expedition he said:

He has been a most valuable man to me. A better one I could not have got. Kekwick is all I could wish

Page | 10

a man to be, active, pushing and persevering.11 Demonstrating his appreciation of Kekwick’s tireless diligence, Stuart named a water point as:

Kekwicks Ponds in token of the zeal and activity he has displayed during the expedition.11 Stuart had created a new method of exploration over his six journeys – that of travelling lightly and rapidly. WD Kekwick’s remaining personal items from the 1861-62 expedition confirm this new methodology and define him as a modern explorer. His spoon had the end cut off and sharpened to act as a knife, enabling him to have just one dining utensil - why carry three tools when one will do? Similarly, his pannikin had a fold over handle to enable it to be carried in a more compact fashion on horseback.

Kekwick’s spoon & pannikin

Courtesy of History SA

Kekwick married Marion Caroline Owen in 1864 when aged 42. Marion was the sister of his brother James wife, Adelaide Frances Mary Owen. William and Marion lived at Port MacDonnell, for a time joining the school staff, where his brother James Kekwick was the headmaster. Kekwick moved again, this time to try his luck at gold mining at Echunga, in the Adelaide Hills. They had four children. WD Kekwick died aged 50 (the same age as Stuart was when he died) while collector of botanical and natural history specimens and the third in charge on WC Gosses’ expedition of 1872. This trip was attempting to blaze a path from the new Overland Telegraph Line westwards to Perth. His faithfulness and his service did not bring him wealth. When he died, his widow was left in financial distress, which the Government, despite requests by Auld and others, refused to relieve. He is buried at Blinman, in the central Flinders Ranges. There is a memorial over his grave built by the Royal Geographical Society, South Australian Branch. Kekwick’s memorial and grave was restored by the John McDouall Stuart Society 2001.

Page | 11

The author at Kekwick’s grave in Blinman, South Australia.

Courtesy of R Moore

I believe it is reasonable to assume (contrary to my earlier position of no speculation) that Kekwick was an utterly competent and reliable man, with whom Stuart surely must have formed a very close bond. Because Kekwick and Stuart spent so much time together, it is likely that their patterns were so well known to each other that each trusted the other implicitly - even perhaps without the need of much verbal communication. There is no record of any disagreements between them. It is quite possible that in the field their relationship was not one of leader and subordinate, but complementary – like two key spokes of a wheel. If so, in the context of the times this would have been unusual.

Members of the South Australian Great Northern Exploring Expedition 1861-62. Rear: Auld, Billiatt, Thring. Front: Frew, Kekwick, Waterhouse, King

Absent: McGorrery, Nash, Stuart


Page | 12

John McDouall Stuart

Stuart at Chambers Bay, 1862. The background represents the shore of the Indian Ocean. Courtesy of the John McDouall Stuart Society

Stuart’s life story is not going to be portrayed here, for it is well known, as are the outcomes of his expeditions.

I’d like to offer some observations from those who lived with and around Stuart. They are qualified to make

judgement; all I can do is observe. They are far better placed to make statements about his character and

values. It’s the mix of all these characteristics, of course, that create fascination and intrigue. These are some

of the words of the people of the day, drawn together. I have set out to find as much adverse criticism of

Stuart as possible, and included it here. There isn’t much.

Page | 13

Toughness

The word that best describes Stuart is ‘tough’. John McDouall Stuart was tough. He was a giant of mental

strength, yet relatively small physically. He was resilient, resolute, consistent and incredibly persistent. This is

demonstrated by his three attempts to cross the continent. TGH Strehlow called these characteristics courage.

Strehlow commented on the allure of Central Australia, expressing joy and satisfaction in living in the Centre’s

outdoors2. Those of us who have done likewise can therefore appreciate in a small way some of what Stuart

and his party endured. Having now travelled over most of his routes, I can’t help but be staggered by what he

endured and how he covered as much country as he did.

As The Hon. John Lewis, the operator of the Overland Telegraph Line estaffete said:

He was a man of true real grit……..the last to consider himself as far as food and comfort were

concerned. …………Well may it be said of John McDouall Stuart, without disparagement to his brother

explorers, that he was the prince of explorers.8

In referring to John McDouall Stuart's life and character 16, his biographer, Mona Stuart Webster quoted from a

letter dated 26th December 1862, written by John Tuthill Bagot M.P., in South Australia, to John Locke of the

Royal Dublin Society, Ireland, and also published in London papers

.... You would be perfectly astonished at the appearance of Stuart, and to think that such a spare and

slender frame could contain so brave a soul, and could be capable of so much energy and endurance of

privation. Stuart's stature is short, his face long, thin and sallow, with an enormous beard, and with a

bright and intelligent eye; his body and limbs are the sparest, and he would seem hardly capable of

walking one mile; but place him on horseback in the bush and then he comes out. He is the same at the

end of a journey after great privations as he was at the beginning (rather better perhaps); and has a

nose like a horse, for he can find water where no one else can. In his journeys he is silent, cautious and

vigilant, but when in town affable and communicative. Such is Stuart and well has he done his work.

There are two more examples of toughness, persistence and resilience, when compared with his

contemporaries.

Police Inspector Tolmer was well known for he was responsible for the Gold Escort from Victorian diggings

back to Adelaide. The livery and wagons for the gold escort were provided by the Chambers brothers, Stuart’s

friends and sponsors. Tolmer was known as a very good horseman. He was an experienced man who later

organised and led an attempt to cross the continent from south to north - a man well qualified, it would

appear. However, his attempted crossing totally failed even before he left the settled districts. Tough little

Stuart left him way behind in the dust.

The second example is the contrasting and tragic story of Burke and Wills. Due to inflexible attitudes and

opinions, Burke and therefore the entire party were unable to adapt or change to their altering and new

circumstances. They were physically tough but mentally weak - mentally weak at the very least for not fully

engaging with and accepting the life support mechanisms of the aboriginal people. The prejudices Burke

carried eventually led to the demise of both he and Wills. Unfortunately, there were many other deaths on this

fragmented expedition. Stuart did not display such characteristics.

Sir Dominick Daly, Governor of South Australia, at the Stuart Procession when the party returned through the

streets of Adelaide in January 1863, said:

…………you now stand foremost, the very prince of explorers.8

Page | 14

Leadership

There are many instances of Stuart being commended on his leadership. I’ve chosen one from his Companions,

one from a fellow explorer, one from a mayor, one from a pastoralist author, one from his biographer and one

from a Governor.

In a speech at the Jubilee Celebration Banquet, His Excellency the Governor, Sir Day Hort Bosanquet

emphasized the qualities and character of the leader McDouall Stuart, which were:

reflected in the absolute, obedience, trust, confidence and affection his men had for him.8

Held on July 25th, 1912 in the banqueting-room, Town Hall, Adelaide in celebration of the 50th anniversary of

the day on which Stuart planted the flag on the shore of the Indian Ocean, the Jubilee Celebration Banquet

was important for another reason. It was a large gathering of people, many of whom had close personal

contact with Stuart, and latterly with the four remaining Companions. As such, it was Stuart’s contemporaries

and peers – the very ones best qualified to describe him – who spoke and attended. The Mayor of Adelaide,

Mr Thomas English, said

the qualities of a leader were strongly developed in the character of McDouall Stuart.8

At the same banquet, noted explorer David Lindsay said

It speaks volumes for the ability of the leader to hold his party together during all those wearying

months of semi-starvation and sickness.8

A definition of strong admiration, respect and recognition of his leadership was given by PH Auld, who in an

address in 1964 to the Royal Geographical Society of Australia (South Australian Branch) quoted his

Grandfather William Patrick Auld as saying:

There is little doubt that every member of the party (final) would have gone with him again, as did

Kekwick four times and Thring twice. 17

WP Auld, one of the young men on the last expedition, said that Stuart was:

Cool, cautious determined and plucky. The greater the difficulty, the cooler he became. 7

Scottish new chum turned grazier and author Robert Bruce says, after recollecting a visit by Stuart that ended

in a drop too much whisky with a work colleague of Bruce’s, an Angus G:

To give Stuart his due he had the pluck of a giant in his puny frame, coupled with a prudence and good

judgement that eminently fitted him for the leadership of men. .........Certainly Stuart was backed

up by such bushmen as are hard to find in the present day. But still it speaks volumes for his leadership

that, though he was inclined to be a martinet, his men all liked him and followed him with a perfect

confidence. Had Stuart possessed a little more literary talent and been competent to do justice to his

own exploits, he would have been a permanently famous man.7

In her definitive work “John McDouall Stuart”, published in 1958, his Grand Niece, Mona Stuart Webster, said

that:

Strength of purpose and of will, courage in the face of adversity, thoughtfulness for the needs of those

under him were each a part of Stuart’s character, and his men admired him as a leader and later grew

to love him as a friend.16

Page | 15

Webster later quotes Stephen King, a member of the last expedition, as saying 16

I come before you not as an explorer but as one of Stuart’s companions. I am always pleased to give

praise in any way to our noble leader.16


The issue of context referred to in the introduction applies to Stuart’s leadership experiences. He came from a

family accustomed to leading; his grandfather, father, brother and brother-in-law were all leaders of men in

the military. While not suggesting that leadership is an inherited trait, the circumstances around Stuart may

have predisposed him to become a leader.

Stuart demonstrated foresight and careful planning in reducing the weekly rations for men, only three or four

months after leaving Adelaide. He had very limited means at his disposal, but more than made the best of

things by careful management of rations and horses. The horses came first, then the men, and then him7 - in

other words he was selfless. Leadership by example was Stuart’s way. Is it not amazing that a civil engineer

from a small port on the opposite side of the world should become such a skilled leader, bushman and

horseman?

Modesty, Determination and Respect

TGH Strehlow, in his Comments on Stuart’s Journals, remarked on Stuart’s modesty and courage:

Stuart’s modesty, too, deserves the highest commendation. Few other explorers who traversed

Australia in the nineteenth century could measure up to him in un flinching endurance and in lion-

hearted courage which carries on to the final goal despite a long series of losing battles. To travel

across the Centre once in the eighteen sixties was a highly courageous achievement: to do so six times

was the mark of a hero of more than normal stature; for each subsequent journey led Stuart once more

through the country of whose deadly dangers he was fully aware……….. I have never ceased to marvel

at the courage of the first white man who travelled over this route.2

Webster referred to this modesty more as the character of reticence. She said Stuart was at all times

extremely reticent, hiding his emotions behind a reserve which rarely left him. This reserve was not strong

enough to curtail the streak which drove him on. In his epitome delivered to the Royal Geographical Society in

London two years before he died, Stuart addressed his desire to:

Page | 16

.....solve the Great Problem, The Centre of Australia, Where is it? And what is it? Another great point of

inquiry had been, who shall succeed in traversing the Great Continent from sea to sea? You will forgive

me, when I candidly admit, my ambition was fired. I believed and felt the task to be a practicable one,

and resolved to make it the great aim of my life to accomplish it. 18

Recognising the hardships of his many journeys, the President of the RGS, Mr AW Piper said at the Jubilee

Celebration Banquet

He seems never to have been depressed by difficulties, but to have had the quality of irrepressible

determination.8

Stuart was certainly self effacing, but he was also proud. He believed that opportunities presented by the

settlement on the north coast of the continent - a mere three years after his crossing - were unexampled in

the history of colonization. He was well aware of the significance of his work.18

Stuart was admired and respected by many who were also in the field. Explorers Stephen Hack, BH Babbage

and John Ross, as well as surveyors on the Overland Telegraph Line erected 10 years after the sixth expedition,

commented on his navigation and accuracy.7

Stephen King’s sketch for a proposed statue of Stuart.


In London, at the Royal Geographical Society, Charles Bonney read from a letter from Stuart’s former leader, Captain Charles Sturt, who said:

I am not at all surprised at Stuart’s successes, for I know him to be a plucky little fellow - cool, persevering and intelligent, as well as an excellent bushman.7 Another mark of respect was delivered by Sturt who mentioned Stuart’s loyalty, diligence, zeal and energy. Sturt had observed these characteristics during an attempt to find an inland sea in 1844-45.

Page | 17

Compassion

John Woodforde, who was on Stuart’s 5th expedition but interestingly absconded in the early days of the last expedition, said that the men were on:

Best of terms with Mr Stuart and his second in command, who do all in their power for the comfort of

the party.7

An indication of the depth of understanding and regard for the welfare of the men was displayed by Stuart on

the very day that the men had reached their goal, the north coast of Australia. WP (Pat) Auld had asked that

the men may be allowed to have a celebratory cup of tea. Stuart forbade it, which at first glance would appear

to be churlish. However, it was forbidden not because Stuart was mean spirited or tough or uncaring; in fact

exactly the reverse was true. He knew that owing to the lack of supplies and distance from support they were

on the edge of failure; he wanted to protect the welfare of his men and his trip by ensuring they could make it

back to Adelaide.

Governor RG MacDonnell later endorsed this character trait, saying:

Stuart never appeared to be actuated by a bitterness of spirit7

The close relationship and empathy between all the members of Stuart’s last expedition was demonstrated by

Pat Auld who nursed Stuart during the five months of the horrendous return trip to Adelaide from the north

coast. He retained vivid memories of Stuart's suffering for the rest of his life and could rarely speak of them

without coming near to tears. Stuart told Auld,

If I knock up, I know you will stick to me till I die. I'll go on to the last. 7

The Ambulance, by Stephen King.


In addition, it seems Stuart had an endearing affinity for children which encompassed an indulgent attitude,

and the ability to take, and make, a joke. Although Stuart is presumed to have studied in Edinburgh, he

attended a Glasgow boarding school (possibly during the 1820s). James Sinclair, shipmate and family friend

related that, after requests for lighting at school had been refused, a practical joke was played on the dominie

during school breakfast on a dark Glasgow morning. In accordance with a prearranged plan, Stuart seated

himself alongside the master, awaited his opportunity, and inserted his own hot spoonful of porridge into the

Page | 18

mouth of the unsuspecting master. After proving the room was too dark, Stuart was ‘“let off with a caution"’

and the room was lit with ‘"farthing dips"’.21

The Sinclairs settled in the Port Lincoln district of South Australia and Stuart stayed with them many times.

Once, when reprimanded by his parents, James Sinclair’s son Donald sought out Stuart in the shearing shed.

On another occasion a thrashing administered by his father with the waistbelt of’ "dear old Stuart"’ ultimately

led to young Donald shredding the belt. Whilst washing the sheep in creeks and pools before shearing, their

delight was to 'accidentally' throw Stuart in. These jokes were taken ‘"in good part"’ by Stuart....and

reciprocated.21

Mrs C.F. Blake (nee Kirwan) for years said that she treasured a copy of ‘"Pickwick Papers"’, because it had been

given to her by John McDouall Stuart when she was a ‘"talkative little girl"’ on Arkaba Station, a place well

known in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia and on the road to Chambers’ head station, Moolooloo. 21

In terms of attitudes of the day, Stuart had an enlightened and respectful perspective of the Aboriginal people

he observed. TGH Strehlow, when referring to relationships with the Aboriginal people encountered

throughout his expeditions, said:

“It is greatly to the credit of Stuart that he was an infinitely more humane man than many of his white

contemporaries ever aspired to be……………It is this quality of humaneness that I consider to be one of

the finest characteristics of Stuart’s Journals. 2

Criticism and jealousy

As president of an historical society dedicated to such a narrow field such as Stuart and his Companions, one

of my responsibilities is to prevent myth from becoming fact. Opposing that perspective, the president of an

historical society should aim to avoid censoring or refuting a perception which may be less than currently

favourable. It could be argued that it is not the task of an historical society to provide a filter. The characters

the Stuart Society is focussed on should surely be seen ‘warts and all’. After all, it is the characteristics of these

individuals which define them and make them more interesting.

Stuart is not the only explorer whose character and deeds are under threat of misrepresentation. In addressing

this issue, with respect to the North American explorer John Wesley Powell, Wallace Stegner wrote:

Verifiable knowledge makes its way slowly, and only under cultivation, but fable has burrs and feet and

claws and wings and an indestructible sheath like weed-seed, and can be carried almost anywhere and

take root without benefit of soil or water. 22

A contemporary view of Stuart exists regarding Stuart’s fondness for drink, and for his other perceived failings.

Opinions and speculation abound regarding the issue. Many authors have chosen to focus on one particular

aspect of Stuart’s character – his perceived alcoholism. It is currently opportune to address that issue.

As president of the Stuart Society I feel I must ensure that the strong focus on Stuart and his drinking

reputation is removed (it is my belief that a ‘favourite’ story about Stuart is that of his drinking, and it has been

repeated with prejudice for generations). Hence my reluctance to use an adjective (alcoholic) which can’t be

substantiated, and which ignores his circumstances and the health issues he had. Just because authors

repeatedly term Stuart an alcoholic does not make him one. I’m not denying for a moment that he had an

issue with the grog when he got back to town. But I do fail to see why part of his character should be featured

to the exclusion of other character traits – traits such as his leadership style, his navigational skills, his enduring

dedication to tasks, or even his failure to heed known medical facts about scurvy and how to avoid it. Bearing

those responsibilities in mind, I can assure you there are no facts to support Stuart being termed an alcoholic.

Page | 19

This issue has been publicly debated frequently in the last three or four years, and no one has been able to

demonstrate alcoholism, despite some recent authors stating such a ‘fact’. However, there is evidence to

support the fact that Stuart had notable intakes of alcoholic beverages when he returned to settled districts.

Dr Beverley Wood and I presented a poster at a nutritional conference in Darwin 23 in May 2009. In that poster

we suggested the term ‘social binge drinker’ might be suitable.

JB Bull, who was working for James and John Chambers in 1859, offered another perspective on Stuart, a criticism, and it is a key to Stuart’s success. Proposed by John Chambers to be in the party of men going with Stuart, Bull said the reason he (Stuart) would not take him was:

he knew I would not stand his humbugging.7

Bull also said Stuart took those:

who were such a lot of carpet slipper and lime-juice gentlemen.7

Stuart knew what he wanted in his companions, and he sought to have only those around him that he could

work with. He sacked some, some absconded (Smith on the third expedition; Woodforde on the final

expedition); perhaps Stuart did not suffer fools easily. On Stuart’s side it must be remembered that lesser

bushmen who might have disputed his course or questioned his authority, could have proved disastrous to an

expedition, and that Stuart did get every man safely across Australia and back.

Of course, not everyone thought he was telling the truth or was to be admired. Eustace Reverley Mitford

wrote in the press under the pseudonym of Pasquin. He was not favourably disposed to Stuart. He alleged

Stuart had not made Chambers Bay. He denigrated Stuart’s journal charts as being deceptive. He scoffed at the

RGS medal award. He gibed Stuart about the freemason signs near Attack Creek. 7

Bitter at the failure of their expedition, some Victorians sought to debunk Stuart’s success. Under the guise of

Interstate rivalry, some jealousy or envy was directed towards Stuart. Instigated by journalists in Victoria, a

perceived but not real race across the continent was happening between Stuart and the lavishly equipped

Victorian Exploring Expedition, led by Robert O’Hara Burke.

Caricature of Burke and Stuart by Nicholas Chevalier.

First published in Melbourne Punch, 8 November, 1860,

Courtesy of the State Library of Victoria

William Howitt (father of explorer Alfred Howitt who retrieved the remains of Burke and Wills) ridiculed

Stuart’s desire to see the Overland Telegraph Line follow his route. 16 The effluxion of time showed just how

misguided Howitt’s opinion on this matter was.

Page | 20

Miss Bessie Threadgill, in her notable work24, suggested that Stuart was a martinet and that he had a choleric

personality. This is in marked contrast to the observations of others, examples of which have been

demonstrated. Her use of the term choleric is likely to be a result of her observations of isolated diary entries

when Stuart voiced his feelings of annoyance, disappointment or displeasure 16. One questions how realistic

expectations of perfect character traits in such circumstances are; observations like these overlook the value

of context explored in the introduction.

Christianity

Stuart’s diaries give a strong sense of a man guided by a religious belief. The diaries are littered with

references to God, Christianity and Divine Providence. While on the summit of Central Mt Stuart in 1860, in a

statement not untypical of European perspectives of the times, he said:

We gave then there cheers for the flag, the emblem of civil and religious liberty and may it be a sign to

the natives that the dawn of liberty, civilization and Christianity is about to break upon them.11

On the day he reached the north coast of Australia, he wrote:

Thus have I through the instrumentality of Divine Providence been led to accomplish the great object of

the Expedition.11

While on the return trip to Adelaide, Stuart grew increasingly ill, poignantly saying in his diary:

I feel myself getting weaker and weaker every day. I hope the Almighty will have compassion on me,

and soon send me some relief. He is the only one that can do it – my only friend.11

Other travellers and explorers came to understand some aspects of Stuart’s character. Nearly 80 years later,

noted geographer and modern-day explorer Charles Madigan said of Stuart:

He appears to be a gentle, God- fearing man. 25

Summary of Stuart’s character

Stuart’s character has been described by these many sources. He appears as a quiet, reserved, religious and

compassionate individual, who possessed great determination; an individual who had outstanding surveying,

navigation and bushman’s skills, complemented by strong leadership attributes, but he was not without faults.

The early reference to Stuart’s character being enigmatic is confirmed by the fact that he was a cautious man,

yet one who took big risks. The last clues about Stuart’s character offer different but valuable insights.

Charles Chewings was a geologist, miner, anthropologist, pastoralist and cameleer of the Red Centre, just 20

years after Stuart. He said:

Brave Stuart, he was made of iron possibly the noblest of all Australia’s long list of explorers. I have

thought sometimes while on this expedition of the amount of energy he must have expended to push

his way with a few horses right through the continent; it is somewhat difficult to realize what an

amount of travelling and work he did to attain such a victory. What weary days and nights he must

have spent in the middle of this vast continent. I guess he spent a good many sleepless nights. Pluck,

courage or persistence don’t seem to fully express the sentiment; it savours of a mission, heaven-born,

inwrought, burning, never to be extinguished until the work was done. Brave, noble Stuart, thy work is

done, thy head deserves a crown.26

Page | 21

Finally, in 1922 Bessie Threadgill said:

If he fits awkwardly in any of the niches we insist on making for our heroes, at least he needs no

pedestal to add to his stature in our eyes. He is a very big little man; like Sturt the measure of the cubits

of his stature is great. 24

Stuart’s 6th Expedition Route 1861-62

Map courtesy of DC Kennett

Page | 22

References

1 M.S. Webster John McDouall Stuart: His character and personal qualities

2 T.G.H. Strehlow Comments on The Journals of John McDouall Stuart

3 I. Clendinnen The History Question: Who Owns the Past?

4 Internet http://thinkexist.com/quotes

5 C Darwin The Descent of Man

6 M. Blacker Benjamin Head ‘A Companion of Stuart’

7 I. Mudie The Heroic Journey of John McDouall Stuart

8 The Stuart Jubilee Celebrations Jubilee Celebration Banquet, reprinted from the proceedings of the Royal

Geographical Society of Australasia, South Australian Branch (Vol. X1V)

9 The Adelaide Observer Saturday, January 23, 1897 page a-b.

10 KT Borrow personal communication files held by J McD Stuart Society Inc

11 W. Hardman Explorations in Australia. The Journals of John McDouall Stuart during

the years 1858,1859,1860,1861 & 1862

12 The Stuart Jubilee Celebrations Letter to the Editor, the Advertiser S.A., July 30 1912, by John Blackett

13 The S. A. Government Gazette 29th

May 1851

14 M. Warwick The Kekwicks of Warrington

15 M.S. Webster unpublished manuscript of her book ‘John McDouall Stuart’

16 M.S. Webster John McDouall Stuart

17 PH Auld ‘William Patrick Auld’ - address to the Royal Geographical Society of

Australasia, South Australian Branch, 1964

18 J McD Stuart Epitome of his Journals, delivered to the Royal Geographical Society,

London, 1864

19 George B Miller Poem published in Clare, South Australia

20 Kevin Bowden. Wrong Conclusions. The South Australian Genealogist May 2010

21 John McDouall Stuart Society Newsletter, April 2001

22 Wallace Stegner Beyond the Hundredth Meridian

23 B Wood & R Moore The scurvy ... is now gaining ground upon me since I lost the vegetable

food. Nutrition & Dietetics 66: (Suppl 1):A26 (abstr.); 2009

24 B Threadgill South Australian Land Exploration, 1856-80

25 CT Madigan Central Australia

26 H Mincham Australian Dictionary of Biography Online Edition

27 V Hankel Introduction to Friends of the State Library of South Australia publication of South

Australian Parliamentary Papers 1858-63, concerning Stuart’s explorations

Copyright © KR Moore 2011

stuart, kekwick and head - the character of the men

Documents