Notes

Australia Day this year marks the bicentenary of the only military coup in our history. Popularly but inaccurately known as the "Rum Rebellion", the coup of 1808 played a crucial role in establishing the rule of law.

One of the most debated questions of political philosophy is the identification of the circumstances in which resistance to established authority is permissible. Whether or not that was so in Sydney 200 years ago has divided contemporaries and historians. To highlight the implications the coup had for the rule of law, I would like to focus on the issue of property.

In the early years of the settlement, governor Arthur Phillip planned to reserve the land between Hunter Street and the water for public purposes. Phillip's successors gradually abandoned his plan. The third governor, Philip King, attempted to regularise the haphazard system and to establish clear property rights, granting a large number of leases.

His successor, William Bligh, refused to issue any more leases, announced he would not approve building on existing leases, ordered residents to surrender possession of homes and ordered the demolition of structures built without approval and threatened to demolish others. Intending to revoke the leases, but unsure of his power to do so, he sought instructions from London.

The coup was the result of a range of factors including various aspects of commercial self-interest. The traffic in rum was of little significance, except to some of the non-commissioned officers. Much more important was the conflict between real estate developers and the public interest over the exploitation of prime urban land near the water. Nothing could be more "Sydney" than this.

Bligh undermined what the local elite regarded as property rights. This was inconsistent with the universal understanding of the rights of free Englishmen.

Those adversely affected by Bligh's policies included many with no association with the NSW Corps. However, no coup could have occurred without the united resolve of the officers. Bligh had stirred the acute status anxieties of the officers by challenging their individual and collective reputation. After a trial, in which six officers sat as members of the court, but who acted in defiance of Bligh's wishes, he ordered that they be charged with criminal conduct. He even suggested that it amounted to treason. There could be no greater slur on their honour.