https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history/2023/03/the-posthumous-lynching-of-william-crowther/The Posthumous Lynching of William Crowther
Assessing the evidenceFor those who haven’t been following the Hobart controversy, the rationale for disappearing this tribute to a good man is the accusation that Dr. Crowther illegally removed the head of indigenous man William’ King Billy’ Lanne and sent the skull to the Royal College of Surgeons in London. Crowther strenuously denied the charge and was acquitted.
There is no evidence to substantiate the claim and much to establish that his modern detractors have the wrong man.Michael Mansell’s sole academic reference—which can be accessed
here—proves to be far less than he claims. For instance, Mansell’s statement that author Stefan Petrow — a retired University of Tasmania professor — “cites
all of the newspaper articles” is somewhat misleading. I have researched this particular subject myself (see
here and
here). Significantly,
Prof Petrow did not reference the extended explanation of events which Dr. Crowther himself published regarding the alleged affair.Crowther wrote to the
Tasmanian Times, a copy of which was reproduced by
The Launceston Examiner,on Thursday the March 11, 1869, and can be accessed
here. Dr. Crowther’s personal defence of what happened is compelling.
Especially when one realises that the charges against Dr. Crowther were later dropped and that, as Prof Petrow rightly argues, Crowther was a political opponent of the Dry Government, which used Lanne’s mutilation as an excuse to discredit Crowther.What’s more, as researcher Dr. Ian McFarlane has recently argued:
It is well documented that the Royal Society itself was guilty of every charge levelled against Crowther, with the exception of the removal of Lanne’s skull. However, no evidence emerged as to the fate of Lanne’s skull, although it became clear that neither Dr Crowther nor Dr Stokell were involved.This lack of evidence has resulted in deep divisions within the parties involved in prosecuting the case against Crowther. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC) and Royal Society (Greg Lehman) claim that the skull went to Edinburgh University (it didn’t), the Hobart City Council Mayor, Anna Reynolds, claims (without evidence) that it went to the Royal College of Surgeons in London (they have denied this in writing), while the Royal Society Minutes claim it was still in Hobart in 1904, that fact alone goes some way towards clearing Crowther.
The Mayor also persists with the false claim that Crowther was suspended for mutilating Lanne’s body (with no evidence), this is not true. He was suspended for refusing to appear before the enquiry believing, with some justification, that it was biased against him. To repeat, he was not suspended for any mutilation, and it was such a grievous public stain that only a week after the enquiry he was elected to the Tasmanian Legislative Council as a representative of Hobart, a seat he held until his death and was then later elected as Premier. I need not mention that his funeral was one of the largest ever attended in Hobart and that the very Statue the HCC is intent on removing was paid for by a grateful public.
In short it is a contrived and poorly researched campaign relying on emotion and the generation of public guilt to achieve its ends, without even the pretence of objectivity. I am not aware of one piece of evidence that actually links Crowther to any contact with Lanne’s body whatsoever.
As a consequence, I fully support the Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation (CHAC) in their demand that an enquiry should be initiated, to reveal the fate of Lanne’s skeleton (held by the Royal Society in 1904), resolve the issue of the female Aboriginal skull interred by the TAC on the West Coast under the false identity of William Lanne, and perhaps the fate of Lanne’s skull, as the Royal Society Hon. Sec. Alex Morton has advised that he knew who had the skull and was hoping that it would be donated. On this latter point, perhaps the Royal Society should be also be called upon to explain to the public why they persisted in prosecuting the notion that Crowther had removed Lanne’s skull and sent it to Edinburgh, when the minutes of their own Society clearly refute this whole fabrication.
Vote No
