IN arguing that the Pitt administration had no purpose in colonizing New South Wales other than that of ridding Britain of its toonumerous convicts, Mollie Gillen presents a view that has long held sway in the historiography of British imperialism.1 In the context of recent vigorous debate amongst historians of Australian settlement concerning the motives for the decision,2 in which possible commercial and strategic intentions have been closely examined and from which a consensus is emerging, Mrs Gillen's article is a retrograde step. For while she does present certain aspects of the traditional argument in more detail than previous authors, essentially she argues for an outmoded view which the now-available evidence simply does not support. Presumably because she had prepared the article before she saw my Convicts and Empire,3 she does not take account of this evidence as there presented. In refuting particular points so as to show the error of the general view, it will be necessary for me to refer to details presented in that work; but I also have additional information to offer and points to make. Behind all the twentieth century expressions of the 'dumping of convicts' view4 lurks Seeley's remark that it might almost seem that Britain acquired a second empire in a 'fit of absence of mind.'5 Seeley himself did not believe this, but how better to show the view's validity than to demonstrate that the decision to colonize New South Wales, for example, was late, sudden and taken without due forethought and consideration? This is just what Mrs Gillen seeks to do: 'in 1784 and 1785,' she asserts confidently, 'government was not at all interested in Botany Bay' (p. 748). Were this true, it would strongly indicate that the decision to colonize involved a sudden 'fit of absence of mind.' The trouble is that the evidence flies in the face of this assertion, and shows it to be a serious misrepresentation. Consider this calendar: