Bent Press – invading words

No. 22

Zoom In
Zoom Out
Pan Left
Pan Up
Pan Down
Pan Right
Show Full Image

Andrew Bent (1790–1851) was a London-born printer, publisher and newspaper proprietor who, convicted of burglary and sentenced to transportation, arrived in Hobart Town in 1812. Appointed as the official government printer in c.1816, Bent’s career was marked by conflict with colonial authorities and innovation in publishing. Most notably he imported the colony’s first all-metal printing press in 1823 and published Australia’s first independent newspaper soon after. Invented in approximately 1800 by British statesman and scientist, Charles the 3rd Earl of Stanhope (1753–1816), this massive cast-iron press, known as the Stanhope press, was formed in one piece, creating a machine that resulted in sharper printing impressions and more efficient printing.

The ability of the printed word to effect change cannot be underestimated. Those who owned and controlled the young colony’s printing presses wielded an unusual power. Newspapers provided a popular voice, allowing a wide variety of ideas to be published – particularly those in opposition to the government of the day. They were regarded as a tool of freedom. The printed word was also critical in reinforcing the invasion of European culture into the island, overwhelming the oral Tasmanian Aboriginal culture.

From 1825, Bent used the press to print the Colonial Times and Tasmanian Advertiser – a rival newspaper to the official Hobart Town Gazette. The Colonial Times was virulently anti-government and attacked Governor Arthur incessantly. These attacks led to charges of libel against Bent, leading to periods of imprisonment.

Bent’s importance as Australia’s first independent newspaper proprietor and his technical skills as a printer are widely recognised. In 1881, his publishing was described as “superior to anything… produced at the present day in any Australian colony”.

Bent’s Stanhope press is exceptionally significant. As well as printing Australia’s first independent newspaper, it printed its first satirical sketches, The Hermit of Van Diemen’s Land (under Bent’s ownership in 1829) and first novel, Quintus Servinton (under Henry Melville’s ownership in 1830-31). Both works were anonymously penned by the convicted forger, Henry Savery. The press has a long lineage – today’s Hobart Mercury is a direct descendent of Bent’s Colonial Times.

Comments on this object

  • "The printed word was also critical in reinforcing the invasion of European culture into the island, overwhelming the oral Tasmanian Aboriginal culture." - an emotive and subjective statement which is completely unnecessary and out of place in this description. Stick to the facts. No one at that time thought of themselves as "invaders" and neither should we. They were settlers in an apparently empty land. No denying that they displaced the aboriginal population and committed many atrocities against them, but it wasn't an invasion. Mike Hurburgh
  • Thanks very much for taking the time to read the Shaping Tasmania site and make comment, Mike. In fact both the colonial government and many colonists were well aware that colonisation involved invasion. It was a subject of much discussion. David Burn arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in 1826 and purchased land near New Norfolk in 1830. A frontier landowner he nonetheless explicitly commented that "the reflecting portion of the community knew well that they were ‘invaders’ who had despoiled the original possessors of their hunting-fields" (Colonial Magazine and Commercial-Maritime Journal, volume 2, May-August 1840, p. 75). The surveyor James Erskine Calder wrote about Tasmanian Aboriginal resistance to colonisation in 1831 and asked, "Where is the man amongst ourselves who would not resist an invading enemy?" (in letter to the Launceston Advertiser, 26 September 1831, p. 299). In 1827 Andrew Bent published a detailed a justification of the colonisation of Tasmania in the Colonial Times. In particular he observed that "we have taken possession of their country, and driven them from the native land." Further on he added "where there are no laws to govern the human actions, the only right is vested in power, i.e. strength; by which one individual may be enabled to overcome another, who is weaker, and drive him from his possessions" (Colonial Times, 11 May 1827, p. 2). These are just three examples of contemporaneous descriptions of ‘settlement’ as ‘invasion’. There are many others. Curator of History
  • Ok, I'll amend my comments to align with the facts: Very few of the settlers thought of themselves as "invaders" in the same sense that we use the term "invasion" these days. Mike Hurburgh