"The glorious 23rd of May!" Such was the day and month of 1831,
separated by those who witnessed its achievements to everlasting renown.
The excitement of the campaign against the blacks (see vol. ii.) had
absorbed political animosities, and brought all parties together; but by
this time the popularity of the governor was spent. The struggle for
parliamentary reform agitated Great Britain, and the colonists
determined to attempt the recovery of their rights as Englishmen. So
lively was the interest in the affairs of Europe, that the tri-color was
mounted by more ardent politicians. The last wave of revolution, which
had scattered thrones, rippled on these shores.
A meeting was called by the sheriff, and the principal speakers were the
Gellibrands, Crombie, Cartwright, Abbott, F. Smith, Meredith, Lascelles,
Gregson, Dunn, Jennings, Kemp, Hewitt, and Lowes: of these, none were so
conspicuous as Mr. Thomas Horne (a relative of the great Horne Tooke),
afterwards puisnè judge, and who was described as the "honest barrister"
by the admiring press. "If crushing," said the learned civilian, "is to
be brought into operation, no doubt I shall be crushed. Let them crush
me, and they will associate my name with the record of this meeting,
which history will preserve to the latest period of time." The object of
the movement was to bring under the royal notice the government of the
colony, and to demand trial by jury, and a legislative assembly. The
petition to the king was entrusted to the custody of Mr. Sams, who was
proceeding to Great Britain. Whether it ever reached the throne was a
matter of dispute: some said it had been committed to the deep, with
much solemnity; others, that it had passed from the messenger to the
hands of a merchant, who disregarded its fate. It obtained no reply.
The colony had just reason to complain at the time. The supreme court
had been closed for many months: the business of the legislative council
detained the judge and attorney-general from their proper functions, and
for nearly two years no gaol delivery had occurred at Launceston. Two
persons, father and son, charged with cattle-stealing, had been two
years awaiting trial, when they were both acquitted. The evidence
against them was of the slightest description; yet during their
detention domestic calamities of all kinds had overtaken them.
The delay was still further extended by the issue of a new charter, and
with the usual incaution of the secretary of state. This charter arrived
1831: it nominated Mr. Pedder chief justice, and Alexander Macduff
Baxter, puisnè judge. It made no provision for continuing process begun
in the late court, and required colonial legislation to cure the defects
of its details.
Mr. Baxter, the puisnè judge elect, had been attorney-general of New
South Wales. His relations with Darling had not been cordial, and he was
disgraced in the eyes of the public by domestic differences: his wife
was insane, and he himself was intemperate. Just before he left Sydney
for Van Diemen's Land, he was bound over to keep the peace, and was
declared insolvent. On his arrival, the royal warrant for his induction
had not reached the colony, and after some delay he returned to New
South Wales, and thence to Great Britain, where he died. Mr. Baxter
ascribed his ruin to his grant from the crown: he employed persons to
look after his estate, and they conducted him to beggary.[185]
The lieutenant-governor resolved, if possible, to exclude Baxter from an
office which he could only dishonor, and passed an act, pronounced by
the lawyers a piece of "doubtful and dangerous" legislation, by which
the clause of the charter requiring two judges was expunged, thus
constituting the court of one. The act of parliament, however,
authorised the measure: the council had power to repeal or annul a
patent, until the pleasure of the crown were known. The act was
approved, and remains among the laws. Occasions might occur, when the
course of justice would be arrested in a small community by requiring
many officers to constitute a court.[186]
The reformers were not disheartened by their failure: they assembled
again the following year,[187] at the request of the Hornes, the
Gellibrands, and the Gregsons. The effort was unavailing. In 1834, it
was renewed with still more earnestness: the former parties, reinforced
by many important accessions, maintained the popular cause. Repeated
disappointments excited some bitterness, which was expressed in strong
terms.[188] Mr. Thomas Horne reminded the home government that they
would make "a dissatisfied and turbulent people, ready to use their
power, and assert their rights, if necessary, by force of arms." He
advised the oblivion of minute grievances, and said, "were the angel
Gabriel to propose one measure, and Satan another, if he considered
Satan's the most politic, he should have the honor of adopting it."[189]
But neither importunity nor threatenings prevailed.
These efforts were renewed in the following year; but in 1835 some of
the chief advocates of a legislative assembly deprecated the penal
institutions of the colony, and proposed that all convicts, on their
arrival, should be set free: of this plan, Mr. R. L. Murray was a
distinguished advocate.
A deputation from the meeting for free institutions, requested the
intercession of the governor with the crown; but he replied, that if the
grant of free institutions, and the discontinuance of penal coercion,
were connected by one common advocacy, the interests of the colony, of
the crown, and of philanthropy, would demand the most serious
precaution. He maintained that all British rights were conceded,
"excepting the elective franchise;" and quoted with more cleverness than
dignity, their statements of colonial opulence, to show how little they
had suffered by a former denial of their prayers.
Mr. Gellibrand, senior, was a person of intellectual tastes and lofty
spirit. His early life had been spent among liberal politicians: he was
a zealous advocate of freedom, but still more of knowledge and virtue.
Mr. Gellibrand, junior, was a lawyer of popular talents, whose practice
as a barrister made office of little importance, and who, when discarded
by Arthur, opposed him with incessant vigour. His eloquence was never
exhausted, and his learning as a lawyer obtained him consideration in
the court, which his boldness as a pleader often threw into jeopardy.
Mr. Thomas Horne exhibited a fervour in the popular cause, worthy his
kinsman. The rest were chiefly settlers, and patriots from resentment or
conviction.
These meetings preserved the principles of constitutional freedom; and
if they did not hasten its possession, reiterated its lessons and
prepared for its enjoyment. Whatever temporary turmoil the meetings
created, they were conservative of great interests, and deserve a
grateful remembrance. These appeals to the British legislature were
commonly accepted in silence: by the crown they were graciously received
and forgotten. They had no perceptible influence on colonial policy, and
only acquitted the settlers of indifference to rights, which can never
be valued at too high a price.
The surplus revenue, accruing from year to year, suggested to the
secretary of state the imposition of police, and gaol expenses on the
colony. The non-official members of the council, except one, voted
against the appropriation. They denied that the supposed advantages
conferred by prisoner labor, justified a claim on the colonial funds for
the support of a great national object; and they added this remarkable
passage:--"The influx of moral pollution has been perpetuated, and the
colony doomed for ever to be the gaol of Great Britain, and destined
never to rise to any rank among the British colonies."[190] A dim
fore-shadowing of that universal sentiment to which the constant
attempts to lessen the profits of prisoner labor gave rise. The revenue
was largely dependent on the consumption of liquors, and upon habits
which generate crime and impose expenses on the public. It received an
appropriate destination: funds contributed chiefly by drunkards for the
repression of criminals. Such was the apology for exactions enormous,
when compared with the population; a view not easily impugned, except
that in such cases the interest of the government ceases to be hostile
to vices which increase its wealth.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 185: Letter to Darling, 1830.
Major Mudie says--"Being scarcely ever sober, he left his business to be
done by a convict clerk, who had been a lawyer of some sort previous to
his transportation from England."--p. 245.]
[Footnote 186: 9th Geo. iv. sec. 22.]
[Footnote 187: August 13, 1832.]
[Footnote 188: Captain Glover stated, that the events of the 23rd of May
had been dramatised in the following strain:--The ambassador of that
meeting was admitted to the king: "Ho, ho, Mr. Ambassador," said the
king, "the people of Van Diemen's Land want an assembly, do they; what
do they want it for?" The posed ambassador replies, "Because they do,
your Majesty." "Because they do, Mr. Ambassador, is that the reason they
gave?" "Please your Majesty, I am not certain they gave that reason."
"What do you think of that, Goderich?" says the king. "Oh, all
nonsense," said Goderich. The ambassador, on retiring, requested an
answer, and was informed, "there was none." The ambassador, in his turn,
asked the reason. "Why because we wont--that's all."]
[Footnote 189: From the _Tasmanian_ report of meeting.]