HUME AND HOVELL EXPEDITION
EXAMINATION OF THE TERMINATION POINT OF THE HUME & HOVELL EXPEDITION
By Lance Pritchard

The ‘Foreword’ and ‘Chapter 12’ with the conclusion are reproduced below –

FOREWORD

I am honoured to provide the Foreword to this outstanding research by Lance Pritchard, Hume and Hovel Expedition Termination, Second Edition.

It has been a great privilege to know the author, Lance Pritchard for over two decades dating back to July 2001, with the restoration and commemoration of the origin of Victoria’s first survey (geodetic) baseline, the South Base Stone in Werribee. Lance impressed me with his deep interest in the surveying and exploration history of Victoria and his diligence in research.  That event was especially timely as it was the sesquicentenary, or one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Victoria’s founding as a separate colony, and of course the sesquicentenary of the establishment of the Office of Surveyor-General, following the separation from New South Wales.

I am certain that Lance’s research is going to upset many as it completely goes against the current narrative.  Over the past few years, I have seen many email exchanges dismissing and even discrediting Lance’s research and determination of where the Hume and Hovell expedition terminated.  To his credit, repeatedly Lance faced his proponents with professional rigor, research discipline and decorum.  Furthermore, in my own humble opinion, Lance got it right.

Lance has undertaken rigorous and broad geographical assessments using the old maps and charts, records and diaries.  He has done thorough map-to-ground proof appreciations, by going on the ground, checking and proving lines of sight and forensically analysing the written descriptions in the records.  There is no conjecture in Lance’s assessments - just thorough, practical and pragmatic evaluations.  Along the way, as he has shared his findings and sought feedback from historians, he has copped more than a fair share of criticism, especially from those who simply refused to keep an open mind in the light of the comprehensive presentation and evaluation of the evidence. At times, it was like facing a biased jury, predisposed to fixed opinions, and then embarking on obfuscation to discount Lance’s research.

This work has presented transcripts and analyses of the relevant pages from Hovell’s journal of the last days approaching Port Phillip and also the first days of the return journey.   Further, Lance has well examined Hovell’s description (primary evidence) of direction of travel after crossing the range showing they reached the bay at Point Cook, rather than Corio Bay.
 

Lance has analysed the published work of other researchers.  Significantly, he has revisited material supplied by Dr William Bland which has been previously discarded by other researchers. I would agree with Lance’s assessment that Bland’s additional information could not have been fabricated as some precise compass bearings are provided which when examined prove accurate for observations being made from Point Gellibrand on the evening of the first day of the return journey.   Therefore, as Lance has asserted, the expedition could not have commenced the return journey from Corio Bay.  Rather it could only have been from the Werribee River.

I also very much appreciated that Lance’s work has discussed the naming of the Yarra River as the River ‘Yar’ on December 15, 1824.  This river could never have been observed if they were headed for Corio Bay.  It seems that this has never been discussed by other researchers – largely ignored it would seem.   The Yarra River has special memories for me as the former Surveyor-General of Victoria.  In 2003, we celebrated the bicentenary of the discovery of what became known as the Yarra River, by the expedition of Charles Grimes, then Acting Surveyor-General of New South Wales.

The feud between Hume and Hovell is well captured by Lance.  I found it critical to my understanding of why the entire debate over the expedition’s geography of termination has become confused and that even the then local media, The Geelong Advertiser, blindly, and dare I say falsely promoted Hume’s account and dismissed Hovell.   The role of the media of the day has clearly influenced many historians.  I wonder how things would be handled today with extreme media and the often conflicted and hijacked social media?

Next year, 2024 marks the bicentenary of Hume and Hovell’s expedition, commissioned by the Governor of New South Wales, Sir Thomas Brisbane.  Brisbane was new to the job and did not accept the advice of then Surveyor-General, John Oxley that no river could fall into the sea between Cape Otway and Spencer's Gulf, and that the country south of parallel of 34 degrees was ' uninhabitable and useless for all purposes of civilised men.' and for the time exploration in this direction was greatly discouraged. How things have changed with government leaders wanting facts and not just accepting the hype or unfounded myths - as I found during my term as Surveyor-General of Victoria.  But I digress.  As we head to the bicentenary, this book is profoundly timely.

Finally, I commend this book to all who with an interest in Australian exploration history based on rigorous and forensic research. Good on you Lance - illegitimi non carborundum!
 
Dr. Keith Clifford Bell  AM RFD
FIEAust FISV F.ASCE LS(Vic) CPEng NER APEC Engineer IntPE (Aus)

​

​