The schools for the working classes were originally controlled by the

government. Mr. P. A. Mulgrave, many years chairman of quarter sessions,

arrived with the appointment of superintendent. This office was,

however, filled by the senior chaplain; and until 1838 the schools were

exclusively episcopalian. The altered policy of the crown, in reference

to religion, suggested a change in the organisation of the schools. A

letter, written by Sir Wm. Herschell, was transmitted by Lord John

Russell, detailing the system at the Cape of Good Hope, and recommending

the British and Foreign system for colonial adoption. On this plan

schools were established in 1838, subject to a board nominated by the

crown. It was intended to comprehend all denominations. The clergy of

the Anglican church were from the first hostile to comprehension.

Archdeacon Hutchins demanded that if an exclusive system were no longer

attainable, a fixed sum should be divided among the different

denominations, to be expended in separate schools, in proportion to the

money issued under the church act. The laity in general, however, did

not object to the union of all sects on the plan proposed; and to the

last the British system was supported by a considerable majority,

including clergymen of every sect, both protestant and catholic.

In New South Wales an attempt was made to establish the Irish system,

the school books of which were sanctioned by the chief prelates of the

protestant and catholic churches in Ireland. The protestant bodies were,

however, averse to the exclusion of the "entire scriptures," as a

discreditable compromise, and met the project with decided resistance. A

committee, of which one half were episcopalians, organised under the

sanction of Bishop Broughton, called on the laity to exert themselves in

the "holy cause"[227] of opposition to the project of Sir Richard

Bourke; and they succeeded in its defeat: but when, after their victory,

they met to collate their plans for further action, the meeting was

abruptly terminated by Dr. Broughton, who declared that he could

co-operate in no scheme not framed on the recognition of the episcopal

catechism and clerical superintendence. Denominational schools were,

therefore, established, and those abuses arose inseparable from a plan

which makes men the assessors of their own pecuniary claims.

A committee of the legislative council recommended the establishment of

a general system, on the plan of Lord Stanley (1844). They alleged that

by the denominational system more than half were left uneducated, and

that the thinness of population, the diversity of opinion, the inferior

character of the schoolmasters, and the great expense compared with the

benefit secured, enforced the importance of a general and comprehensive

scheme. Sir George Gipps warmly seconded these opinions, but was

compelled to yield to the strength of the opposition offered by the

clergy, and which no concession short of ecclesiastical control was

deemed sufficient to remove. The agitation of this subject for several

years has lessened none of the difficulties which attended it, and it

remains a vexed question for solution by future legislators.

When the British system was established in Van Diemen's Land, masters

were sent out by Lord John Russell, at the colonial cost. The schools

were, however, regarded with increasing aversion by the episcopal

clergy. Messrs. Lock and Fry, the last a clergyman and the author of a

work on apostolical succession, visited the schools to report on them.

They saw, or thought they saw, laxity, sectarianism, and partiality; and

they gave the results of their enquiries in a copious publication. On

the arrival of the Right Rev. Dr. Nixon this book was placed in his

hands. He petitioned to be heard by counsel against the British system.

His request being granted, he delivered an earnest address, in which he

not only opposed the principle of the school, but reiterated many of the

statements of Messrs. Lock and Fry. The Board of Education had, however,

forwarded minute contradictions to these allegations; and Governor

Wilmot resolved to support the schools until, on a full consideration of

the adverse testimony, the secretary of state should otherwise determine

(1843). Lord Stanley recommended the appointment of a commission of

enquiry, which was accordingly confided to three episcopalian laymen,

who acquitted the schools of most of the imputations of their former

visitors. But the seals of the colonial-office had fallen into the hands

of Mr. Gladstone. This event was fatal to the British system. The

scholastic minister professed to examine elaborately the principles of

colonial and church education, and came to the conclusion that a scheme

of biblical instruction, confided to various teachers of uncertain

creeds, was too little for the churchmen, ought to be too much for the

catholics, and could only be agreeable to independents. He argued that

church teaching includes all that a church believes, and that its

inculcation was necessary to meet the fair requirements of religious

liberty. Acting on a suggestion in his despatch, Sir William Denison

granted a fixed sum per head to the denominational schools, dissolved

the board of education, and appointed as inspector the son of the

illustrious Arnold.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 225: Lord Glenelg's despatch, 1836.]

[Footnote 226: _Sir J. Franklin's Narrative_, p. 77.]

[Footnote 227: Address of Committee.]

SECTION IV.

The claims of the churches on the treasury (1838) soon threatened the

government with serious difficulties. It was resolved to increase the

revenue by prohibiting colonial distillation. This trade had been often

interrupted by the ordinances of the governors, but when the crown

ceased to purchase wheat at a high fixed price it was deemed unfair to

the farmer to restrict the local market for his produce. Duties were

imposed, but they discriminated between sugar and cereals, and between

colonial and imported grain. This distinction offered ample opportunity

for evasion. The distillers employed these various articles at their own

pleasure, and paid the lowest duty. Colonial spirits were sold as

foreign; and the permits of the police-office covered the transit of

quantities greater than they specified. From £5,000 to £7,000 were

annually lost. The bill introduced to extinguish the trade was resisted

by Mr. W. E. Lawrence and other leaders of the country party. They

objected both to the suppression of a lawful trade and the injury

inflicted on those who had embarked their capital. The government

proposed to include in the bill a provision for the indemnity of the

distillers, leaving its amount to be settled by a committee. To this

Chief Justice Pedder strongly objected. The government was unwilling to

entrust to a jury the claims of the distillers, as proposed by the chief

justice; and, not wishing to delay the law, passed it without granting

any security beyond admitting the equity of compensation.

The laxity of the distillation laws had enabled the manufacturers to

realise double profits, by graduated duties, mostly paid under the

lowest denomination. Their gains during the past could not be

questioned; but Sir John Franklin was persuaded that it would be

ridiculously profuse to pay an indemnity for the loss of profits rated

by the success of an illicit trade. A resolution passed the council,

"That any applicant having been proved, to the satisfaction of this

council, to have been in the habit of distilling contrary to law, has,

by such practice, destroyed any claim he might have otherwise had to

compensation." To ascertain this fact a "feigned issue bill" was brought

into the council. It simply referred the question of illegal

distillation to the jury, without assessing their claims. The right of

the distillers to compensation was, however, so indisputable, and the

retrospective action of the bill so liable to objection, that it was

generally opposed; and, by the dissent of the lawyers, the treasurer,

with all the non-official members, rejected by the council. The

attorney-general, Mr. Macdowell, impressed with its injustice, informed

the governor that he could not support the bill; in this resolution he

had been fortified by the strongly expressed opinions of his colleague,

Mr. H. Jones, the solicitor-general, who denounced its principle as

utterly iniquitous and unprecedented: but on the resignation of Mr.

Macdowell, Mr. Jones accepted his place, and voted for the bill:

defending his conduct by stating that he had expressed his former

opinion in ignorance of its details. The public indignation was excited

by this apparent perfidy, for which Mr. Jones atoned by a speedy

resignation. The financial success of the suppression was mentioned by

Sir John Franklin in exulting terms. The law is, however, regularly

violated when grain is low. Private stills have supplied spirits more

than usually deleterious; and the revenue has shown a decline. The

rights of the distillers were recognised by the home government, and

their unsettled claims, to the amount of £7,431, were paid in 1843.

The duty of a member of the government to support, at all events, the

measures of his chief, was asserted by the secretary of state. If his

conscience would not permit his acquiescence, he was expected to resign.

Thus, while his oath bound him to advise, as a legislator, according to

his convictions, his interest, as a public officer, compelled him to

submit to the impulses of another. From this condition the chief justice

was excepted,--a condition hard to an honorable man and unfair to the

colony. However plausible the reasons for distinguishing between an

official duty and a conscientious belief, public morality abhors them;

and Mr. Macdowell is entitled to the colonial remembrance, as one among

few who have refused to support a measure because unjust.

The extensive land sales, combined with the demand for labor (1840),

induced Sir John Franklin to promote emigration. The impression was

general that transportation to Van Diemen's Land would cease; such had

been announced as the policy of the crown. A vessel was dispatched to

Adelaide, where many were suffering severe distress. The New Zealand

emigrants were also dissatisfied, and many found their way to colonies

where wages were high. This course was inconvenient, and excited great

indignation among employers in South Australia, who prevailed on the

government to pass a law intended to check emigration to Van Diemen's

Land.

Sir J. Franklin disapproved of these methods of supplying the labor

market, and proposed to devote £60,000 for the introduction of suitable

working families from Great Britain. By many this movement was hailed

with strong expressions of approbation, as a pledge of social elevation

of the working classes. It was urged by Mr. Philip Smith, of Ross, that

"without an extensive emigration and a stop to the introduction of

convicts it was in vain to hope for permanent prosperity." Mr. Berthon,

of Woodlands, asserted that "before the colony could thrive a better

description of peasantry was necessary, which could never be found in

the sweepings of gaols" (October, 1841). Pursuant to these views the

governor authorised the settlers to select for themselves, by their own

agents, the persons they required. Every considerable inhabitant

received the necessary authority to ship such laborers, under

indentures, at the colonial cost, it being found that useful workmen

were indisposed to emigrate except to a master already known. The

greater part of the settlers appointed Mr. Henry Dowling their agent. It

was the intention of the local government that laborers should be sent

out in small numbers by the regular traders; and thus afford time to pay

the cost of their transit without difficulty to the treasury. The

emigration commissioners objected to all these plans, and set them

aside. Indentures were disallowed; and instead of laborers in the

proportions required, families were conveyed, or they were sent in

rapid succession, hundreds together. On their arrival a financial crisis

reduced their wages: the home government changed its views, and resolved

to continue transportation: the land fund, which had reached £52,000 in

1841, rapidly declined, and in 1843 Lord Stanley was informed that for

years to come little revenue could be expected from the sale of land.

The local officers, unable to pay the charge, were induced to dispute

it; and they attempted to cast on the agents of immigration the failure

of plans disallowed by the commissioners. They evaded the payment for

one year. The claims of the shippers were instantly allowed by the

secretary of state, with the usual interest; and Mr. Dowling, who had

been aspersed by the local government, was amply vindicated by the

commissioners. The colonial secretary charged him with collusive sale of

his agency to London shippers, and a fraud on the colonial treasury. Mr.

Dowling protected his character by an appeal to the supreme court, when

Mr. Horne, the attorney-general, admitted that the imputation was

unfounded, but succeeded in convincing the jury that no malice is to be

inferred from the tenor of a libel when the writer cannot be supposed to

be influenced by mere personal animosity. Mr. Dowling lost by his agency

more than a thousand pounds.

An exceedingly useful class of emigrants arrived under the

commissioners, who readily sanctioned the applications, regard being had

to the equality of the sexes. The commissioners defended their

opposition to the plans of the local government. They asserted that

private agents could never select laborers in numbers sufficient to

freight a ship; and they inferred that transferable orders for the

payment of bounty on the arrival of emigrants would be either matters of

traffic, or that private persons, discouraged by the difficulties of

their task, would abandon it in despair.

For two or three years the emigrants were satisfied and moderately

prosperous. The sub-division of town property was rapid. On every side

small brick tenements multiplied. Every mechanic aspired to possess a

dwelling of his own. But Lord Stanley's system of probation rapidly told

on the condition of the workman. He stood aghast; he persevered for a

time; he appealed to the government for protection against convict

competition. For one-fourth its actual cost his property passed into the

hands of others: in Launceston especially many suburban neighbourhoods

were deserted. The emigrants brought out at so much public and private

cost were expelled to the adjacent settlements, to begin the world anew.

One of those seasons of general distress to which small communities are

especially liable pervaded the entire colonies (1841-4). A variety of

causes contributed to augment its pressure, and to involve the whole in

commercial embarrassment. The imports of New South Wales and Van

Diemen's Land exceeding £20 per head; the high price of grain, reaching

28s. per bushel; the enormous rate of interest, and the boundless

extravagance of credit and expense, produced a convulsion all but

universal.

The measures of the government increased the pressure of these

difficulties. The land sales by auction at Port Phillip were succeeded

by the system of selling on special surveys, at £1 per acre; and he who,

one year before, had competed for his purchase, found the next section

in the hands of his neighbour, at half the price he had given. The

settlers in the elder colonies had speculated deeply. Stock and

implements were transferred to the new country, under cover of credit.

Competition raised the value of bullocks to £30 per pair; of horses to

£60; of sheep to £2; the wages of servants to £50 per annum.

The government had raised the minimum price of land; and thus those who

were entitled to take up their surveys under a lower denomination

hastened their purchases with borrowed money. The London merchants

consigned immense quantities of goods on speculation which were poured

into the market; the promissory notes of irresponsible persons were

taken by their agents: the fraudulent laid up for the crisis; insolvent

estates were crowded into auctions; goods sunk below the expenses of the

factor; dividends of a few shillings in the pound represented the assets

of persons indebted from £50,000 to £100,000; and had not the chief

losses finally rested with the London merchants and the English banks,

the disasters of the times must have long retarded colonial prosperity.

The effects of this revulsion were soon felt in Van Diemen's Land, where

peddling traders had thriven in momentary credit by the union of

worthless names on their bills. As an instance: one hundred bushels of

wheat, sold ultimately for £40, were transferred to a succession of

speculating purchasers, who raised among them £1000, on credit of the

exchange from one to another. The governments of the colonies had

exhibited remarkable miscalculation. In all the treasury failed to meet

the expenses. The deposits formerly realised by land sales were

withdrawn from the banks. Debentures were issued; new taxes were

imposed. The commercial panic was in full career when the crown renewed

transportation to Van Diemen's Land; and thousands and tens of thousands

of British offenders were gathered on these shores. The expenditure of

the government, though large, was chiefly confined to the Capital, or

fell into the hands of the merchants; but it is worthy of remark, that,

except one house, all who could pretend to that rank maintained their

position.

The settlers were, however, deeply involved. They were mostly induced to

purchase at the land sales by borrowed capital. They complained bitterly

of the usury, to which their produce bore no comparison; and incessantly

invoked the legislature to limit the exactions of money-lenders. To

aggravate these evils American flour poured into the colonial markets,

drawing their cash and rendering agriculture profitless. The

declarations of insolvency were daily. Whole streets of mechanics and

traders followed each other. A common liability to the same ordeal

introduced a system of dangerous license; and men walked away with their

creditors' property without molestation and almost without reproach. The

statistics of these times afford a memorable warning to all. To the

government, that by enticing the people to purchase land, the general

revenue will suffer by their imprudence; to the banks, that by reckless

advances capital will be sacrificed for nominal assets; and to the

British merchants, that by glutting every store with speculative

consignments they render their exports of no value--that they ruin the

shopkeeper, whose capital they destroy by the competition and sacrifice

of their own.

But the great resources of the colonies soon manifested themselves. A

settler at Port Phillip discovered or applied the art of boiling down

the surplus stock, so as to produce the tallow of commerce; and sheep,

lately 2s. 6d., became worth eight shillings. The discovery of the Burra

mines raised Adelaide from deep prostration. The opening of new tracts

of country offered a vast field for successful enterprise; wool once

more rose in price; the banks lowered their discounts to a reasonable

level; the goods saved from the general wreck appeared in the shops of

those who took the tide at its flow; and every colony exhibited the

signs of returning vigor--all but Van Diemen's Land.

SECTION V.

The last three years of Sir John Franklin's administration were chiefly

employed in arranging the details of the system of convict discipline,

afterwards expanded by Lord Stanley to gigantic proportions, and

described in the second volume of this history. Accompanied by Lady

Franklin, Sir John penetrated the western district of Van Diemen's Land

to Macquarie Harbour, formerly a penal station, to ascertain its fitness

for a similar purpose, and some of the perils of his early life were

renewed. His absence for several weeks awakened great anxiety, and his

return was greeted with a general welcome (1842).

The most painful event of his political career sprung from a

disagreement with the nephews of Sir George Arthur, and especially with

Mr. Montagu, the colonial secretary. A narrative of this dispute,

written by Franklin on his return to England, was issued for private

circulation just after he started on his last voyage of discovery.[228]

This account traces minutely the progress of a quarrel which all parties

concerned are anxious to forget. The power acquired by Mr. Montagu in

colonial affairs was considered by Franklin incompatible with their

relative position. Inferior officers had been dismissed on his

imperative advice, who complained that they were sacrificed because they

stood in his path and thwarted his plans. Franklin partly shared in

their suspicions, and appointed persons to offices who were unconnected

with the Arthur party, and as a counterpoise to their influence. The

immediate cause of the final rupture was the restoration of a colonial

surgeon, dismissed on a charge of culpable negligence. His neighbors,

believing the penalty unjust, remonstrated in his favor, and Franklin

complied with their request. This Mr. Montagu severely condemned, as

fatal to the dignity of government, and ascribed the lenity of Sir John

to the influence of Lady Franklin. He then announced to the governor, in

a formal manner, that thenceforth he should confine his own services to

the routine of his office, and that a cordial co-operation might be

expected no longer. The details of business, formerly prepared to the

governor's hands, were left to himself: trifles exhausted his attention:

his pleasure was asked with affected formality, and his enquiries

answered with studied reserve. In a dispute with the governor in

reference to a matter of fact, Mr. Montagu addressed him (17th of

January, 1842)[229] in the following style:--"I trust," said he, "your

excellency will also pardon me for submitting to you--and I beg to

assure you that I do so under a deep conviction of the necessity of

supporting my statement--that while your excellency and all the members

of your government have had such frequent opportunities of testing my

memory as to have acquired for it the reputation of a remarkably

accurate one, your officers have not been without opportunity of

learning that your excellency could not always place implicit reliance

on your own." Clothed in a profusion of words, the charge of imbecility

or falsehood was understood. The jealousy and contempt which had

characterised the late official intercourse of Sir John and the

secretary could not but injure the public service and divide the

government into factions. But this language was deemed inconsistent with

official subordination, and on its receipt Mr. Montagu was dismissed.

Aware that it would be difficult to justify his note, Mr. Montagu

offered an apology, with a view to a restoration. He sought, through Dr.

Turnbull, the friendly offices of Lady Franklin. Her mediation was

employed, and was unsuccessful; but Sir John promised to represent the

past services of Montagu in the most favorable terms to the secretary of

state, strongly recommending his employment elsewhere. This pledge the

governor redeemed. Lord Stanley received Mr. Montagu with

favor--consulted him in reference to convict discipline--heard his

complaints of Sir John and Lady Franklin--and treated the governor in

his own imperial way. He admitted that the proper relative positions of

Franklin and the colonial secretary had been inverted; but ascribed the

ascendancy of Montagu to his intellectual superiority; ordered his

salary from the hour of his dismissal to be paid; and claimed the credit

of great moderation in not sending him back to his office. The generous

testimony of Sir John in Montagu's favor was quoted to condemn his

dismission. The despatch containing these sentiments was placed in the

hands of Montagu, who, with natural exultation, sent it out instantly to

his friends. He had preserved minutes of his interviews with Lord

Stanley, and recorded his own severe reflections on the character of

Lady Franklin. These memoranda, bound together, were sent by Mr. Montagu

to the colony, and, although circulated with some reserve, became very

generally known. The governor complained bitterly of this covert

detraction, and especially of the attack on the character of his wife,

whom he solemnly vindicated from that interference with public business

charged upon her. No one who reads the dispute will deem it necessary to

weigh nicely the reproaches which were current on either side. To

destroy or be destroyed is the usual choice of official war; and Montagu

had not been bred in a school where more generous maxims prevail. He had

conquered; and the feelings of the governor or his partisans were not

likely to be treated with tenderness. Sir John is perhaps the only man

who ever accompanied a dismissal with eulogy, and the result of his

candour will probably prevent its imitation.

To Lord Stanley more blame must be attached. It was his duty to care for

the reputation of a governor whom he did not instantly recall. But his

despatch was in print long before it reached the hands of Franklin, and

must have been fatal to his proper authority had not popular sympathy

sustained his government. Before Sir John received an official notice of

his recall his successor arrived. On this abrupt termination of his

office he obtained private lodgings in haste. The Legislative Council,

then sitting--the various churches and literary societies, expressed

their admiration of his personal character, and, more sparingly, their

approval of his administration. He was attended, on his departure, by a

considerable party of northern colonists. Sir John, in reply to their

addresses, spoke with some warmth of that portion of the press which had

libelled his wife,--a lady devoted to the welfare of the colony; whose

last act was to settle property on an institution for scientific uses;

whose benevolence was unbounded, and who, at a large sacrifice of her

private fortune, had ministered to the comforts of the poor. Had it been

consistent with his duty, he said, he would have gladly exposed to the

whole people his most secret measures. He declared that he would never

fail to uphold the reputation and to promote the prosperity of the

colony. The frank and humane temper of Sir John Franklin won the

affections of the settlers. He thought favorably of their general

character, appreciated their moral worth, and shared in their notions of

convict discipline. The insults of which he complained were the acts of

a few: a philosopher would have smiled where he deprecated; and have

felt that the salary of office is not more certain than the enmities

which surround it.

The alleged ascendancy of Lady Franklin in public affairs it would be

useless to discuss. Her masculine intellect and adventurous spirit led

some to ascribe to her more than the usual authority of her sex and

station; but whenever apparent, her influence was exercised on the side

of religion, science, and humanity.

The appointment of Franklin to this government was made at the instance

of William IV., by whom he was greatly esteemed. It was the expectation

of Sir John to find an easy retreat, like some of the military

governments, where veterans enjoy the dignity of office without its

toils. But he found himself doomed to encounter all the responsibilities

of ordinary legislation and government, with difficulties peculiar to a

penal colony. For this his former pursuits had not prepared him. His

manner was often embarrassed and hesitating, and presented a contrast to

the quiet vigor of his more able but not more amiable predecessor. The

colony had attained that development when the public institutions

require reconstruction, and the popular will must in some measure

regulate their form and spirit. The administration of the governor was

eminently disinterested. He had no private speculations or secret

agents, and his measures were free from both the taint and the reproach

of corruption. Such faults were sometimes imputed, but they were the

staple slanders of writers without credit or name. His expenditure

greatly exceeded his official income; and while the plainness of his

establishment and entertainments was the topic of thoughtless censure,

the charities of his family were scattered with a liberal hand. The

piety of Franklin was ardent, and his conscience scrupulous. His remarks

in council on the sports of some idle boys in the government domain on

the Lord's Day exposed him to the satire of scorners. He thought that

youths who violate the sanctity of the Sabbath take the first ordinary

steps in a dissolute and dishonest life. An anecdote, on the authority

of Captain Back, shows his harmless character in a striking light.[230]

The writer observes--"As an illustration of the excellent individual to

whom it refers, I may be pardoned for introducing it here. It was the

custom of Sir John Franklin never to kill a fly, and though teased with

them beyond expression, especially when taking observations, he would

gently desist from his work, and patiently blow the half gorged

intruders from his hands, saying, 'The world is wide enough for both.'

Manfelly (an Indian chief) could not refrain from expressing his

surprise that I should be so unlike the 'old chief' who would not

destroy a single mosquito."

The name of Franklin is indissolubly connected with the great problem of

modern geography--the connection of the polar seas with the north

pacific ocean. In 1818 he was first employed in this service, but

returned without success. In 1820 he conducted an overland expedition to

the Coppermine River. This party suffered every kind of hardship, from

the loss of boats and the mutiny of their attendants: several perished,

having eaten their old shoes and scraps of leather: yet Franklin

recorded in his journal the following grateful expressions--"We looked

to the great author and giver of all good for the continuance of the

support hitherto supplied in our greatest need." They completed a

journey of 5,550 miles. The narrative of this expedition excited at the

time much admiration, as a rare example of intrepidity, perseverance,

and elevated piety.[231] In 1824 Franklin was entrusted with the charge

of another expedition. They were attacked by the Indians, and the party

was saved from destruction by the coolness and judgment of the leaders:

they encountered storms, fogs, and cold, which prevented their reaching

their destination. These efforts considerably enlarged the scientific

knowledge of the icy region. On his return to England in 1843, it was

resolved to confide to Sir John Franklin a new effort to discover the

north-west passage. Accompanied by Captain Crozier, he sailed in May,

1845. The vessels--the _Erebus_ and _Terror_--were furnished with

provisions and artificial fuel for four years. They were last seen by

whalers in Lancaster's Sound.

In 1847 the long absence of Franklin and the 136 persons under his

command awakened considerable alarm. English expeditions, both by land

and water, a reward of £20,000 offered by parliament, and the earnest

co-operation of foreign powers, have done all that money, or daring, or

affection could accomplish to solve the mystery of their fate. Though

these efforts are not even now (1852) relinquished, the issue has ceased

to be regarded with hope;--except by Lady Franklin, whose exertions to

rouse and prolong the search have excited the sympathy and admiration of

nations.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 228: _Narrative of some passages in the History of Van

Diemen's Land, during the last three years of Sir John Franklin's

administration of its government._]

[Footnote 229: _Franklin's Narrative_, p. 21.]

[Footnote 230: _Back's Expedition_, p. 180. 1836.]

[Footnote 231: _Quarterly Review._]

HISTORY OF TASMANIA

FROM 1843 TO 1847.

FROM 1843 TO 1847.

SECTION I.

Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot, Bart., succeeded Sir John Franklin,

August 21st, 1843. His short and troubled administration, although

crowded with incident, presents few events of permanent interest.

Charged with the development of a gigantic scheme of penal discipline,

founded on erroneous data, and imperfectly sustained by material

resources, he was involved in the discredit of its failure. The

opposition of the colony to his measures he too readily resented as

disrespectful to himself, and thus a long and useful public life was

closed in sadness.

Sir Eardley Wilmot received his appointment from Lord Stanley, whose

political leadership he followed in his secession from the whigs,

occasioned by the reduction of the Irish church. During successive

parliaments he represented Warwickshire, and for twenty years was

chairman of the quarter sessions of that county,--in England a post of

some consequence. He inclined rather to the liberal than the tory

section of the house, and supported most measures favorable to civil and

religious freedom. On the question of negro slavery he was a coadjutor

of the decided abolitionists, and on his motion apprenticeship, a milder

form of slavery, was finally terminated. He contributed papers on prison

discipline, and initiated a bill for the summary trial of juvenile

offenders. Thus he appeared not unqualified to preside in a colony where

penal institutions constituted the main business of government, and

where many religious opinions divide the population.

The gazette which announced his appointment contained the nomination of

Sir Charles Metcalf to the governorship of Canada, vacated by Sir George

Arthur. An article in the London _Times_ attacked Sir E. Wilmot with

uncommon acrimony, attributed by himself to the influence of private

spleen. He was described as a mere joking justice, accustomed in his

judicial office to "poke fun" at prisoners, destitute alike of talents

and dignity, and his character a contrast with that of the new Canadian

governor. This bitter diatribe was published in the colonies, and was

not forgotten in the strife of factions. Metcalf was indeed a governor

with whom the widest comparison would scarcely find an equal. Every

Capital he ruled is adorned with his statue, and when he descended to

the dust his tomb was wet with the tears of nations. He consulted the

ministers with the independence of a patriot, and governed the people as

one of themselves.

Wilmot landed at a distance from Hobart Town, and delayed his entrance

on office to afford time for a removal of Franklin's household. When he

was sworn in the town illuminated, and the usual excitement of novelty

wore the appearance of public welcome.

The open and affable address of the governor attracted the people. He

rapidly traversed the island. The agricultural knowledge he possessed,

his promptitude in forming and expressing opinions, contrasted with the

habits and manners of his predecessor. Those who were experienced in

official life foresaw the dangers of a temper so free and of movements

so informal. The opponents of the late governor recommended the neglect

of all the distinctions which had limited intercourse, and some persons,

never before seen at government-house, were admitted to the closet, and

boasted their intimacy and influence.

Scarcely had Wilmot entered office, when an exercise of mercy brought

him into collision with one of the judges. Kavanagh, a notorious

bushranger, was condemned to death. He had fired on a settler, whose

house he attempted to pillage. In giving sentence the judge remarked

that he had seldom tried a culprit stained with so great an aggregate of

crime. Ten minutes before the time appointed for his execution the

governor granted a reprieve. Judge Montagu was indignant, and those who

had suffered by the depredations of the robber shared in his opinion.

The press, in commenting on the commutation, predicted that the culprit

would not long escape the scaffold. He was implicated in the murders of

Norfolk Island, and suffered death (1846). Judge Montagu, shortly after

the reprieve, tried four men for a similar crime, and instead of

pronouncing sentence, directed death to be recorded. He stated that the

sparing of Kavanagh could only be justified by the almost total

abolition of capital punishment. At a meeting of the Midland

Agricultural Association Wilmot noticed these reflections, and declared

that he would never inflict death in consideration of offences not on

the records of the court, and that in this case robbery only had been

proved. He thus early complained of anonymous attacks, and admitted that

in offering these explanations he was out-stepping the line of his

situation. Topics of a far more agreeable nature were suggested by the

special business of the day. He dwelt with great fluency on the

advantages of agriculture, and dilated on the importance of independent

tenants and an industrious peasantry. "You," he observed, "are to

consider yourselves as the column of a lofty pillar; but, depend upon

it, a tenantry form the pedestal,--a virtuous, moral, and industrious

peasantry the foundation on which that pillar rests. I see around me

some of your largest proprietors, who this day are lords of wastes and

princes of deserts; but who, if the system of tenantry be carried out as

fully as it deserves, will become patriarchs; and the future Russells,

Cavendishes, and Percys of the colony may be proud to date their

ancestry from any one of you."[232] This strain of compliment was

returned by Mr. Kemp, the oldest of the settlers,--so many years before

distinguished in the deposition of Governor Bligh. He congratulated the

meeting on the appointment of his excellency, whose presence he compared

to "the vivifying rays of the sun after a long cheerless winter,

encouraging the ploughman to resume his labors with fresh spirit."

The prevalence of bushranging, though far less than at an earlier

period, induced the midlanders to project a yeomanry corps. They were to

provide weapons, meet for exercise, and always stand prepared to answer

a summons. They proceeded to the choice of a treasurer and

secretary--Messrs. Keach and Leake, Jun. They were, however, informed

that the levying of armed men is the prerogative of the Queen. On

reference to the governor, he declined to sanction their incorporation,

while he praised their martial spirit. Bushrangers rarely move in

numbers, and a military is not the kind of power best adapted to

suppress them.

On meeting his council for the first time (October 21, 1843), Wilmot

expressed his admiration of the colony, its soil, its climate, and

immense resources. He promised to consider the pecuniary difficulties of

the settlers, with a view to their alleviation. Referring to the

appointment of a comptroller-general, the chief officer of the convict

department, he declared his cordial concurrence with the new discipline

as a reformatory system; and, noticing the recent arrival of a bishop,

he avowed his preference for the episcopal church, and, in still

stronger terms, his attachment to religious liberty and equality.

The salary of the governor was augmented to £4,000 per annum: the former

uncertain but expensive allowances were withdrawn. Franklin had enjoyed

£2,000 per annum, as salary, and the government houses of Hobart Town,

New Norfolk, and Launceston; a farm at New Town, and a large garden in

the domain. The salary of the new governor was given in full discharge

of all demands. The beautiful gardens he determined to throw open to the

public.

Having accepted the office of president, Wilmot convened the Tasmanian

Society, formed by Franklin, and presented a series of alterations in

its organisation. He proposed that it should consist of a president,

four vice-presidents, and a council of twelve, to be nominated by the

governor; and that at first it should be limited to fifty fellows. The

project was distasteful to the original members of the Tasmanian

Society, who objected to the summary increase of their body. Wilmot

proceeded to incorporate those who concurred with his views as "The

Horticultural and Botanical Society of Van Diemen's Land." They were

then intrusted with the government garden, and the appropriation of a

grant of £400 per annum, required for its cultivation. The discarded

society complained of the haste of the proposed revolution. They thought

past services demanded a consideration of their wishes. They had

received in trust an endowment from Lady Franklin of some prospective

value; they corresponded with men of the first scientific circles; and

they had published a journal which widely extended the physical

knowledge and European fame of this hemisphere. None who are experienced

in the causes of political discontent will consider such trifles without

serious effect on the tempers of parties and the peace of rulers.

Wilmot received the government in a condition most unfavorable to his

tranquillity. The arrival of many thousand prisoners had for a time

quickened trade, and some months elapsed before they became competitors

for the bread of the free mechanics. The universally low price of labor,

the demand for dwellings, and the closing of a local bank, which

liberated small capitals, occasioned a competition for town allotments,

and set all classes to building. But this stimulus was soon exhausted,

and workmen of every grade began to suffer distress. They found hundreds

of passholders working at a price to them, indeed, ample, but on which a

family would starve. The regulations introduced by Lord John Russell

discouraged employment of prisoners in the towns, where they could

easily indulge every evil inclination, and where they abated the value

and respectability of labor; but such was the pressure of numbers on the

colonial government that its officers were glad to abandon all

reformatory theories to get rid of the crowds which idled their time and

burdened the British treasury. The free operative classes appealed to

the governor for redress. Wilmot replied by appeals to their humanity:

he said that many prisoners of the crown, influenced by bad example,

ignorance, and want, had lost their liberty; that it would be unkind and

unjust to obstruct their progress to competence and reformation. These

excuses for a policy which tended to depress honest workmen only

convinced them that it was time to retire from the country. A more

powerful class might have shown that the proper office of mercy is to

shorten the duration of a sentence, and not to inflict punishment on

unoffending families of freemen.

A party of colonists, who chose Mr. Gilbert Robertson as their

secretary, formed an association to promote the amelioration of

financial embarrassment. They nominated a "central committee," to

prepare information for the guidance of the government, and to watch

over legislation. In explaining their plans to Wilmot they professed to

feel confidence in his liberality, judgment, and zeal. To this he

replied in glowing terms. He told them that during a short residence he

had traversed the colony and acquired a knowledge of its value; that he

had projected many schemes for the improvement of agriculture and the

relief of the treasury. He gave strong assurances both of his

expectation of better days and his efforts to hasten them; but then he

complained that the association, by its structure and schemes, depressed

his anticipations; that they proposed to supersede imperial

instructions, and to supplant his constitutional advisers. The

objections he offered, and the tone in which they were urged, induced a

practical dissolution of the society--scarcely compatible with regular

government.

For the last time in these colonies application was made by the settlers

for a law to restrict the amount of usury. It had been a favorite object

for many years. They asserted that the exactions of capitalists involved

the colony in a hopeless struggle. England had, however, abrogated

usury laws, and left the value of money to be determined by the ordinary

relations of supply and demand. To this principle the governor resolved

to adhere (1844).

What the law could not effect was produced by a less exceptionable

process. The merchants and professional men addressed the banks, and

urged an abatement of interest, then 10 per cent. for short-dated bills,

and 12-1/2 for renewals. They appealed rather to liberality than to

abstract right. This was followed by a reduction in the Van Diemen's

Land Bank,--an example which the other establishments did not readily

adopt. Eight per cent. soon, however, became the highest amount usually

exacted in regular transactions.

The difficulties of the agriculturists from the low price of grain,

induced them to look for artificial relief. With too much facility

Wilmot gave hopes which he could not realise. The imposition of a heavy

duty on New South Wales tobacco, amounting to prohibition, and that just

as it was reaching considerable perfection, led to the imposition of a

duty on our grain. It was the wish of the Tasmanian settlers to restore

free trade between the colonies, and to impose discriminating duties on

the produce of foreign countries; but the harsh and ridiculous system of

colonial government, which discriminated between Australian and Canadian

grain, compelled one British colony to treat another, its next neighbor,

as an alien, and that while England demanded free admittance for English

manufactures. The peremptory instructions of Stanley were conveyed to

the local governors in terms of intimidation.[233] They were forbidden

to allow any kindred colony the least advantage over foreigners, or to

pass any bill for that purpose, and were told that any evasion of this

restriction would occasion the high displeasure of the crown. The reason

alleged for this interference was that colonies could not be expected to

understand the treaties and trading system of the parent state; as if

any treaty should have hindered a commerce actually not more distinct

than the trade between London and Liverpool. Wilmot warmly espoused the

claim of the Australian colonies to share in the privilege of Canada, in

favor of which the duties had been relaxed on colonial grain. Mr. Hutt

brought their petitions before the attention of parliament; but he could

not plead a political necessity, and the ministers were able to resist

without the risk of a rebellion. They asserted that the distance made

the concession of no practical value, while it would tend to augment the

alarm of the English farmers! Thus, while they humored the empty fears

of their own constituents, they afforded another example of the futility

of colonial petitions which, however just, it is convenient to

disregard.

To assist agriculture, the council passed an act interdicting the use of

sugar, under certain conditions, by public brewers. The trade strongly

objected to the restriction, as impolitic, vexatious, and impracticable.

Their objections were admitted by the secretary of state, who quietly

observed that he had been advised that sugar could not be considered

deleterious. This is the last attempt at protective legislation.

To benefit the rural interest the governor proposed a grand scheme of

irrigation. An eminent engineer, Major Cotton, was employed to report on

the subject, and suggested the detention of the waters of the vast lakes

which overflow from the heights of the western mountains. A rate to be

imposed on the various estates was to discharge the cost. Thus in those

seasons of drought which sometimes occur the lowlands would be made

increasingly fertile. The immediate object--the employment of probation

labor at the colonial cost--detracted something from the charms of the

project. Nor did it seem just that the settlers should risk the ultimate

cost of an undertaking they could not limit. Sir E. Wilmot earnestly

recommended the scheme to the home government, but Lord Stanley

hesitated until the evils of the probation system enforced a change, and

lessened the labor at the disposal of the crown. Had the men been

employed on a work so popular they would have been withdrawn from the

colonial eye, and the interest of their new labors might have

extinguished the prevailing discontent. But while the governor waited

for instructions the men were idle, or employed in useless attempts at

cultivation on barren land, of which the produce rarely defrayed the

cost of the implements destroyed.

The charge for police and gaols had always been borne by the legislative

council with impatience. The estimates were accompanied by an annual

protest against entailing on the colony any pecuniary consequence of

British crime. But when the convict labor was withdrawn from the roads,

and new taxes demanded, the time arrived for the most decided

resistance, and the event proved that the councillors who refused their

consent acted with prudence. The minister himself was compelled to own

at last, that the exaction of twenty shillings per head for police, was

unexampled in civilised governments.

In 1836 Mr. Spring Rice (now Lord Monteagle) took advantage of a

considerable local land fund to throw on the council the police

establishment of the colony, occasioned by transportation. The sum then

required (£14,000) was comparatively unimportant, and it was urged that

the labor of convicts employed on public works at the cost of Great

Britain, except £4,000 for superintendence, was a sufficient

compensation. But the charge for constabulary and prisons gradually

increased to £36,000. The land fund, after deducting £97,000, expended

for emigration, for the support of aborigines, and the working of the

land office, yielded in ten years a surplus of £207,000, carried to the

general revenue; but during this time the charge for police and gaols

exceeded £311,000. The increase of judicial expenses, and especially of

witnesses, was proportionately great; and this last item in one year

(1846), although most lighter crimes were disposed of in a summary way,

rose to £6,000. The execution of public works by the crown had been the

sole vindication of these charges. From this arrangement Lord Stanley

departed, and in peremptory terms prohibited a spade to be moved but on

payment from the colonial treasury. Thus at a season of commercial

stagnation the benefit of convict labor was withdrawn, while the charges

for police and gaols rose to one-third of the entire revenue of the

colony, and in two years and a-half a debt accumulated to £100,000.

Notwithstanding the obvious injustice of this burden, the treatment of

the New South Wales legislature gave slight hope of redress. Lord

Stanley directed Sir George Gipps to obviate the threatened resistance

of that council by hastening pardons to the prisoners, by withdrawing

them from the service of the settlers, and by sending those not

otherwise disposable to Van Diemen's Land. He was forbidden to relieve

extreme financial difficulties by drafts on England, or draw from the

military chest, although at the period an immense body of convicts

remained long after transportation had ceased. This disregard of a more

powerful colony led the people of Van Diemen's Land to infer that from a

minister so unscrupulous no justice could be expected while evasion was

possible.

Wilmot was deeply embarrassed, but he determined to adhere to the

instructions of the secretary of state, whose distance prevented his

perceiving the hopelessness of his project until that discovery was

unavailing. The positive nature of these injunctions left no room for

discretion. The governor was commanded not to adopt any detailed

regulations at variance with the scheme prescribed by the crown, or to

depart from its provisions without express authority.[234]

Sir Eardley Wilmot resolved that the utmost extent of taxation should be

tried rather than infringe the orders of Stanley. A bill to raise the

duties on sugar, teas, and foreign goods from 5 to 15 per cent.

encountered an earnest but unavailing opposition. This bill was still

more obnoxious from a clause, afterwards abandoned, to levy the duty on

the current value of goods at the market of consumption, instead of

export--a mode which taxed all the expenses of shipment. Mr. Gregson

proposed the rejection of an impost required only by the extraordinary

pressure of convictism. Several of the non-official members voted with

the governor for the last time.

A committee of the council had been appointed to ascertain how the

expenditure could be reduced and the revenue augmented. They enumerated

various forms in which further taxation might be practicable. These were

proposed by the governor. Auctioneers, pawnbrokers, publicans, butchers,

eating-house keepers, stage-coach and steam-boat proprietors, cabmen,

and watermen, were to be subject to new or increased license fees.

This project aroused the people to an unusual degree. On the day of

public meeting[235] a procession of cabs and waggons, decorated with

flags bearing the inscription, "No taxation without representation,"

presented a novelty in colonial agitation. Mr. Kemp, the veteran

politician, presided. The opposition prevailed, and the governor

resolved to withdraw the obnoxious measure. It would be difficult to

discern a line beyond which taxation might not pass, if every trade and

profession can be subject to arbitrary imposts levied by a legislature

at the mere dictation of the crown.

Referring to this meeting as a triumph which history would report to the

latest posterity, the _Courier_ added--"Rulers will henceforth recoil

from the virtuous indignation of the people, as the reptile recoiled

from the touch of Ithuriel's spear." It was supposed by Wilmot that this

not very lucid prediction conveyed a gross and personal insult, and that

it attributed to him the artifices and loathsome habits of the fiend.

The private secretary was instructed to withdraw the subscription of the

governor, and to explain the cause of his displeasure. Such petulance

took the colony by surprise. A less experienced politician might have

been expected to disregard a heavier censure; and this conflict with a

local editor was noticed by the London press as a curious instance of

official sensibility.

The sheriff refused to call a meeting to consider the condition of the

colony, because one of the objects was to notice the appropriation of

the public revenue. This he had been advised was an interference with

the royal prerogative! The friendly tone of his refusal restrained the

wrath it was calculated to excite. It is quite impossible to suppose any

branch of politics more clearly within the sphere of popular

remonstrance than the expenditure of the public money (August, 1845).

Mr. Bicheno, the colonial secretary, who, like the governor, might have

been popular in quiet times, was little qualified for a stormy debate.

He announced the most arbitrary notions in the blandest tones, and

asserted that the doctrine of concurrent representation and taxation was

a wild revolutionary idea, exploded by American independence. The

revenues he called the Queen's, and thought it monstrous that any should

dispute her right to her own. Though he compared the parent country to

the hen and the colonies to chickens, he could see nothing to disturb

the analogy in a demand for fresh contributions. He asserted that all

constitutional history showed that it was the prerogative of the crown

to tax the people, and instanced the Cape--a conquered province--as an

example. He affirmed that customs were not taxes, as the public were not

compelled to use the articles on which they were levied. The prosperity

of communities he asserted rose with the increase of taxation; that the

placards posted over the town were a complete delusion. Taxation and

representation--a cry first introduced by Lord Chatham, was, he said,

never adopted by the liberal whigs (August, 1845). Such un-English

notions were no assistance to the cause of the executive, and were

distasteful to all who pretended to value constitutional government.

The _ad valorem_ duties, raised to 15 per cent., for some time produced

less than they realised at five. The licensing scheme being rejected,

nothing remained but to reduce the expenditure or increase the debt. To

relieve the revenue and employ the convicts the executive proposed a

road act, and another for lighting and paving Hobart Town. The great

objection to these measures was their design to evade the question at

issue between the home government and the colony;--with many more odious

still as recognising a right in a crown appointed legislature either

directly or indirectly to tax the people. Mr. Gregson stated early in

the session that he would not levy a shilling additional until the

burdens of police were equitably adjusted. Supported by Captain

Swanston, formerly a staunch adherent of Sir G. Arthur, he successfully

moved the rejection of these bills. Their discussion drew forth many

expressions of personal feeling. The governor declared he would not stay

in office one hour did he not believe that Lord Stanley meant fairly by

the colony, or could he not conscientiously act upon his lordship's

instructions; and he begged that all the opprobrium cast on Lord Stanley

might be considered equally applied to himself. He remarked that the

opposition had exhibited a spirit "more radical and even Jacobinical"

than he ever had witnessed in parliamentary factions. These reproaches

were repelled by Mr. Gregson, who contended that in resisting unjust

exactions for convict purposes he was promoting the real interests of

the colonial government. The governor retorted that with such support as

the honorable member afforded he would readily dispense.

When the estimates for the year were presented (August 20th) the country

party insisted on enquiry, and Mr. Dry proposed the appointment of a

committee to ascertain the proportionate burdens transportation imposed.

This motion was rejected by the governor's casting vote. Another, made

for adjournment, to give the members time to investigate the items, met

a similar fate. It was, however, discovered when the estimates were read

that they differed from the copy in the hands of the members. The chief

justice supported a second motion for adjournment, to enable the

colonial secretary to correct these discrepancies. On the re-assembling

of the council (25th) the governor stated that considering the

determination avowed by the members to refuse all items for the expenses

of convictism, and the general state of popular feeling, he had resolved

to pause, and to await the arrival of expected despatches on the subject

of dispute from Lord Stanley, in reply to his own.

Sir E. Wilmot was sensible of the financial burden inflicted by the

convict establishments. A committee of government officers sat shortly

after his arrival, and pointed out the many and large items to be traced

to the prevention and punishment of crime. This report he forwarded to

Lord Stanley. He complained that charges never before thought of were

levied by the commissariat, as well as the full value of convict labor,

and insisted that the expences incurred by the colonists for police

ought in fairness to be defrayed by the crown, or that the labor at its

disposal should as formerly be allowed in compensation.[236]

So late as August, 1844, the secretary of state refused to entertain the

claim for relief. He stated that the colony would be obliged to expend a

sum nearly equal, although all the convicts were withdrawn; for their

sakes, he said, the island was colonised; they constituted the working

population; and he added that in the military and naval protection, the

support of the unemployed convict, and the capital and cheap labor

poured into the colony, a fair proportion of expenditure was borne by

the crown.

Pressed by extraordinary difficulties, Wilmot again[237] urged the

injustice of these conclusions. He complained that not only India,

China, and the Cape of Good Hope, but New South Wales, were pouring in

felons of the worst description, who, as pass-holders, occasioned a vast

outlay for the suppression of crime. He told his lordship that for

several years the land fund had totally failed, while the expenses of

police and gaols, of judges and witnesses, had risen to £50,000. At this

time the number of arrivals was five thousand annually, sent from every

colony and dependency of the empire, as well as from the United Kingdom.

There were between three and four thousand pass-holders unemployed,

7,000 in private service, 6,000 about to emerge from the gangs, 8,000

with tickets-of-leave or conditional pardons, and in all more than

30,000 unqualified to quit the island without the consent of the

crown.[238]

It is impossible to read these representations without feeling indignant

at the nobleman who suffered the representative of the Queen to struggle

with difficulties so manifold and great,--who left him to the

alternative of breaking through positive prohibitions or of incurring

popular distrust and aversion. To this delay the governor owed much of

the opposition he suffered, and the imperial government inconveniences

of lasting consequence. Nothing was conceded to justice--nothing to

entreaty; and the secretary of state yielded at last as despotism must

ever yield,--without merit and without thanks.

The whole change in the details of the convict department was marked by

a spirit eminently opposed to the colonial welfare. With singular

acuteness and perspicuity Lord Stanley described the former systems as

subject to local influence and subservient to local ends. Every

governor, he alleged, was under a strong bias in favor of expense, as

the patron of a multitude of officials. He stated that the executive

council were equally benefited by the wasteful expenditure, either in

their own persons or those of their official brethren, and that every

colonist had an interest in the multiplication of bills on the British

treasury. To prevent these abuses, the convict estimates were

thenceforth to be prepared by the colonial secretary, the

comptroller-general, and the commissariat officer, subject to the

approval of the secretary of state.

The management of the prisoners being confided to the judgment of the

governor, Lord Stanley deemed the chief cause of its many changes, and

its subservience to colonial prosperity. The deference of the ministers

to this discretion he attributed to the unwillingness of the home office

to interfere with a functionary in correspondence with the colonial

office, and the reluctance of the secretary for the colonies to guide a

penal system designed for interests exclusively imperial. Thus, he

stated, the governor was practically independent, and had strong

inducements to render the labor of convicts subservient to colonial

wealth, and to disregard the great design--the prevention of crime in

Great Britain. He declared that all schemes of convict management were

of colonial origin, and all contemplated local interests as their main

object. To prevent these devices he proposed to retain in the

colonial-office the exclusive management of the details of

transportation.[239]

Among the items of convict expense was a charge of £164,000 for rations.

This Lord Stanley considered an extravagant outlay. He deemed it highly

improper that in a country where all the means of subsistence existed in

such abundance with an unlimited supply of manual labor, this charge

should remain. He however feared that while the convicts were permitted

to labor on works of colonial utility the local authorities would always

find means to increase the charges for their subsistence (Feb. 28, '43).

The treasury concurred in this view, and requested that explicit

instructions might be given to Wilmot and the comptroller-general to

prevent the employment of labor for the colonial benefit, and to devote

their utmost efforts to raise the food on the waste lands of the colony.

The convict department attempted agriculture, and they selected for the

experiment cold, damp, and barren soils. Gardens of a few acres occupied

a thousand men: the cleared land was utterly worthless. Garden seeds

were brought into the colonial market, and potatos sold at twenty

shillings which cost the government £10 per ton. Several hundred men

idled their time in cultivating land which did not equal in the

aggregate a single farm.[240] The estimated value of all the articles

produced on two stations, Deloraine and Westbury, in 1846, by four

hundred men, was less than £2 per man; while the salaries of their

officers were nearly double that sum.[241]

Mr. Montagu, the late colonial secretary, in estimating the cost of the

convict department, presented a calculation £100,000 annually less than

the estimate of the officers on the spot. This difference Lord Stanley

set up as proof of the culpable negligence and profligacy of colonial

expense. He considered the body of persons employed in the control of

prisoners excessive. A reduction was therefore enforced, and in the end

less surveillance was employed than free labor usually requires.

To each party of three hundred seven overseers were attached, without

constables or other restraint. The sub-division of these parties in

labor left them often to the practical oversight of a single person, and

he an expiree. Thus they were able to make excursions for the purposes

of robbery and pleasure: their clothing tended rather to disguise than

distinguish them. As the terms of their service expired they were

discharged in the prison dress, and no one could tell whether they were

or not illegally at large. Escaped prisoners have been known to walk

through bodies of men on the road without challenge. In several

instances robberies were committed on travellers within the precincts of

the stations. The enclosures were often merely the common garden fence.

The judges avowed that in passing sentence for crimes they could not

punish them with severity, considering the strong temptations of the

men. Remembering the number virtually and legally at large, the degree

of safety, or rather the instances of exemption from pillage, must be

considered almost miraculous. A great portion of minor crimes were not

prosecuted, and a still larger number were undetected; but eight hundred

recorded crimes--a scourge to ten thousand families, and full of terror

and danger to all--would not seem extravagant when divided among thirty

thousand prisoners.

The despatches of Wilmot to Lord Stanley described with accurate

minuteness the social effects of the probation system. Those who

remember his apparent apathy when those evils were the topics of

colonial complaint will deplore the strange fidelity to his political

chief which induced him to conceal his own sentiments from the

colonists. He stated that the territory was inundated with unemployed

prisoners; that no labor being in demand, they must either starve or

steal; that a yearly increasing pauper population, without adding one

atom to colonial wealth, would swell the catalogue of crime and increase

the public expense in every form; that the number out of employment was

fearfully great; and that land--cleared, fenced, in complete

cultivation, with houses and buildings--might be bought at the upset

price of waste land. To remedy these evils he proposed the extension of

conditional pardons to the Australian colonies, the remission of the

price of crown lands to emigrants, and the letting of allotments at a

nominal rental for seven years to conditionally pardoned men, with a

contingent right of purchase.[242]

To all these remonstrances, so far as they affected the colonist, Lord

Stanley had a ready reply. The colony was originally penal, and could

claim neither compensation nor relief. He considered that in emigrating

the colonists surrendered at discretion; that they were not entitled to

object to the trebling of their police burdens and to the importation of

all instead of a small part of the convicts of the empire, as was the

case up to 1840. His rejoinder was felt with that bitterness which none

can realise who have not known the tyranny of irresistible despotism.

Happily for mankind there is no power above the steady and determined

operations of truth and right. The cruel desertion of the people in the

hour of their distress--the scornful defiance of their complaints, has

involved the cabinet of England in difficulties for which nothing but

great sacrifices will fully obviate. No people in this hemisphere will

entirely trust a British minister until the history of Van Diemen's Land

is forgotten.

The anticipated relief not having arrived, the governor again assembled

the council on the 21st of October. He now proposed several expedients

to meet the exigencies of the moment. He had, unauthorised by the

council, borrowed money of a bank. He proposed to stop the forage

allowance of the clergy, and to retain 12-1/2 per cent. of the salaries

of the officials. Both these measures were withstood--the last

effectively. The chief justice denied the power of the council to

interfere with his income. When a new set of estimates was offered they

were found to be unintelligible, and an adjournment, to enable the

colonial secretary to afford the necessary information, was proposed by

Mr. Dry. This reasonable request was lost by the governor's casting

vote, and several motions with a similar object were defeated in the

same manner. Mr. O'Connor, the non-official member who supported the

executive, was absent, and thus the votes of the official and country

party were equal, and the balance was in the governor's hands.[243] At

the next sitting of the council Wilmot proposed to pass the estimates.

Ineffectual efforts to postpone their consideration exhausted all means

of evasion, and Mr. Dry moved that the Appropriation Act should be read

that day six months. He expatiated on the injustice of the system which

condemned the colony to the cost of an imperial scheme, and insisted on

the solemn obligation of the council to resist an accumulation of debt

which must involve the colony in ruin. Mr. Gregson followed, and

referred to the unavailing representations of Sir G. Arthur, Sir John

Franklin, and Sir E. Wilmot himself, in reference to police expenses,

and dwelling on the evils of the convict system. An adjournment of the

debate being moved the governor opposed it with his deliberative and

casting vote, and added that he resisted the motion because it was only

intended to embarrass. The Appropriation Act would then have gone to the

third reading, but the non-official members at once quitted the chamber,

and reduced the number below the legal quorum. On the day following Mr.

Gregson appeared at the table and apologised for the absence of his

honorable brethren, who were preparing a protest to present on the

morrow. Wilmot complained of discourtesy, and denounced the opposition

as disloyal and unconstitutional. They asserted that quitting the

council chamber was not unusual, and was not a concerted movement, and

resented in decided language the charge of disloyalty,--amounting in

sworn councillors to perjury, if rigorously construed. The governor

afterwards explained that he had reference only to the particular

instance, and not to their general intentions.

It had been publicly rumored that rather than allow the Appropriation

Act to pass, several members had resolved to resign. Captain Swanston,

less prominent in opposition, waited on the governor, and earnestly

advised him to forward another set of estimates, prepared by Captain

Swanston, for the approval of the secretary of state. He warned him that

should he persevere a rupture would inevitably follow. In this interview

the governor expressed his determination to proceed. He forgot, it would

seem, some of those forms of civility which no man can safely neglect,

and Captain Swanston left him with a sense of personal affront,--an

immedicable wound.[244]

In this temper the council met on the 3rd of October. Mr. Gregson called

the attention of the members to a question submitted to Mr. Francis

Smith, a barrister: Whether, as chairman of a committee, the governor

had a deliberate and casting vote, and whether the quorum required by

law at a meeting of council was requisite in committee; and thus whether

the estimates were legally passed through the committee, the numbers

present being less than one third, and the governor giving his double

vote. Mr. Smith gave his opinion that the estimates were in law

rejected instead of carried; but the chief justice considered the

sitting of committee merely a convenient method to sift beforehand items

afterwards to receive a legal sanction in the council. The

attorney-general without notice was unprepared to give an opinion, and a

motion of Mr. Gregson for delay was lost. The colonial secretary then

moved the third reading of the obnoxious bill, when Mr. Dry rose to read

a minute, signed by the members in opposition, objecting to the

proceedings. This being rejected as irregular, Mr. Gregson proposed that

the third reading should be delayed that the members dissenting might

bring forward other estimates. In urging this motion he rebutted the

"disloyal" imputation, and referred the governor to the unity existing

in the country party in proof that inevitable necessity alone had

prompted the co-operation of persons hitherto adverse. This motion being

lost--before the Appropriation Act could be carried--the opposition

quitted the council. Those remaining did not constitute a quorum, and

the legislative session was abruptly terminated. The _Gazette_ of

November the 4th announced that Charles Swanston, Michael Fenton, John

Kerr, William Kermode, Thomas G. Gregson, and Richard Dry, Esquires, had

resigned their seats.

The obligation of the official members of the council to vote with the

governor on all government questions had been long before decided. The

non-official were only bound by their oaths to assist in all measures

necessary for the good of the colony, but the nature of their powers and

the proper mode of their exercise were subjects of dispute. Wilmot

maintained that they were assisting in "a council of advice" on subjects

submitted to their judgment, and were not qualified to question the

general policy of the executive. All beyond a simple aye or no he deemed

usurpation. Thus when they demanded papers, called for committees, and

obstructed obnoxious measures by the artifices of parliamentary debate,

they were charged with forgetting the duties of their office. These

gentlemen, however, maintained that it was their duty to hold the

executive in check on behalf of the people, and that whatever was not

abstracted from their supervision by specific laws was proper for their

consideration. The governor claimed a deliberate and casting vote; and

thus one non-official member, by concurring with the executive, or even

by abstaining from voting, neutralised the voice of the rest. The

official members had no discretion allowed. Lord Stanley had ruled that,

choosing to assume relations disqualifying them to vote with the

governor, they were perfectly free to do so; but having done so, they

could not retain their employment. He alleged that there would be an end

of official subordination, and that the public service would be brought

into serious discredit by allowing a different course. He admitted that

exceptions might occur, but their force was left to the judgment of the

governor.[245] This decision reduced the official debates to a mere

pantomime, and a seven-fold vote would have better expressed the real

character of the legislature than the disguise of separate suffrages.

The chief justice was alone independent.

Having resigned their office, the _six_ sent a letter of explanation to

Lord Stanley. In summing up their complaints they asserted that they

were called on to vote an expenditure the colony could not bear,--to

anticipate a revenue higher than the customs department calculated on

receiving; that they were denied information, although they were bound

to deliberate; that they were expected to augment an alarming debt, and,

when crime was increasing, to diminish police protection; that they were

told by the governor he would carry the estimates by his casting-vote,

before they refused to pass or had examined them; that the governor

claimed power to borrow and spend without legislative consent; and

finally, that discussion and enquiry were denounced as factious,

unconstitutional, and disloyal: under these circumstances they resigned

their seats, as the only open course, and submitted their conduct to the

judgment of the Queen.

The opposition to the measures of Wilmot could not be in every instance

justified if separately considered. But the colony discovered in the

governor an inflexible determination to carry out the system of

probation under the instructions of Lord Stanley. It was not possible to

resist the secretary of state, the chief aggressor. The imperious tenor

of his despatches taught the people that mere remonstrance would be

unavailing. They could only arrest his attention by involving his agents

in embarrassment. Repeated motions for the attainment of the same object

are certainly incompatible with legislative order. A small party might

retard the public business, and gain no good end by delay; but the exact

line between fair and factious opposition is not easily discovered and

can be often only ascertained by the result. In this instance the

object was clearly expressed in a rejected resolution:--"This council do

decline voting the sums stated in the estimates laid on the table for

the payment of the judicial, police, and gaol establishments during the

ensuing year, as far as the expenses of the convict department with

respect to those items are incurred. At the same time they desire to

place on record an expression of regret that they should, by a sense of

duty, be compelled to adopt any measure likely even temporarily to

embarrass his excellency's government."[246]

The cause of "the patriotic six," as they were called, was eagerly

espoused by the colony. To supply the vacancies occasioned by their

retirement was the labor of weeks. The governor defended himself from

the charge of despotism, and declared that he would never interrupt the

freedom of debate or attempt to force the compliance of the council. The

opposition press held up to scorn those disposed to accept a nomination,

and gentlemen who did so were assailed with scandalous abuse,--so easily

is the noblest cause degraded by its friends. A more suitable expression

of popular feeling was given on the return of Mr. Dry to his native

town. He was escorted by a large concourse of people and with all the

usual tokens of public esteem. The father of Mr. Dry was exiled during

the political troubles of Ireland in the last century, and after a

respectable career attained considerable wealth. The son, the first

legislator chosen from the country-born, the colonists saw with pleasure

consecrate himself to the cause of his native land. Mr. Gregson, the

leader of the opposition, was honored in a more substantial form. A body

of his admirers, by contributions of large amounts, raised a testimonial

in the shape of 2,000 guineas, and plate with a suitable inscription. On

no previous occasion had public sympathy so attended political

controversy, and never was the legislative freedom of the country more

earnestly desired.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 232: Agricultural Dinner, October 18, 1843.]

[Footnote 233: Despatch, June 28, 1843.]

[Footnote 234: Despatch, No. 34, 1843.]

[Footnote 235:

NO TAXATION!

A meeting will be held at the Theatre.

Auctioneers, rise at our bidding.

Pawnbrokers, pledge the public your interest.

Butchers, show your pluck.

Publicans, prove your spirit.

Stage-coachmen, drive on.

Cabmen, make a stand.

Carters, put your shoulders to the wheel.

Eating-house keepers, support the constitution.

Boatmen, a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether.

God save the Queen!

August 6, 1845.]

[Footnote 236: Despatch. December 5, 1843.]

[Footnote 237: January 24, 1845.]

[Footnote 238: Despatch, Jan. 31, 1845.]

[Footnote 239: Correspondence, January 5, 1843.]

[Footnote 240: Mr. Maclean's Report, 1844.]

[Footnote 241: Dr. Hampton's Report.]

[Footnote 242: Despatch, January, 1845.]

[Footnote 243: Mr. O'Connor, however, had protested against the police

expenses in the following terms:--"Because, were this not a penal

colony, one-third of its present police force would be adequate to its

protection. I therefore do not consider that in common justice the

colonial government ought to be required to defend themselves, at their

own expense, against the aggression of convicts sent hither principally

for the benefit of the mother country" (July, 1844).]

[Footnote 244: Letter of Captain Swanston to Lord Stanley.]

[Footnote 245: Despatch to Sir G. Gipps, Jan. 1st, 1845.]

SECTION II.

The development of the new convict system gradually disclosed its

adverse character, and excited general dissatisfaction and alarm. The

press warned the people that an attempt to change the whole aspect of

the colony, from a free to a mere prison community, could only be

resisted by instant measures. Abolition of transportation was spoken of,

although as a contingency rather than an object desirable; and a few

only of the colonists were anxious to speed that event. Among these was

Mr. Pitcairn, a solicitor of Hobart Town, a gentleman never before

prominent in politics, but eminently fitted to lead the community on

this question. The first petition of a series unexampled in number was

drawn up by him, and offered to the colonists for signature. All its

allegations were supported by documentary evidence, drawn from the

public records.

The location of the gangs exposed them every moment to public

observation. A frightful sketch of their distribution was drawn by the

author of the petition. "If," said he, "you look at the last map of Van

Diemen's Land (Mr. Frankland's), you will see, at the entrance of

D'Entrecasteaux's Channel, South Port. Here there are 500 men. Above, at

Port Esperance, 400 men. Above this, along the banks of the Huon, the

farmers begin. At Port Cygnet, up the Huon, there are 350 men;

proceeding up the channel, you come to Oyster Cove, 250; Brown's River

(just above Worth West Bay and five miles from Hobart Town), 500. Taking

now the main road from Hobart Town to Launceston (the lands on each side

being all settled, fenced, and improved), you will see Glenorchy (eight

miles from Hobart Town), 150 men; Bridgewater (twelve miles), 100; Cross

Marsh (thirty miles), 100; Jericho (forty miles), 100; Oatlands (fifty

miles), 180; Ross (seventy miles), 120; and Cleveland (86 miles), 250.

At Perth (one hundred miles from Hobart Town and nineteen from

Launceston), there was another gang, which was recently withdrawn.

Leaving the main road, there are at the Broad Marsh, 240 men; at Fingal,

400; at Buckland, 250; at Jerusalem, 500; at St. Mary's, 300; at

Westbury, 200; at Deloraine, 300; at the Mersey, 200. In all, twenty

gangs, comprising 5500 men."

The petition this statement sustained desired the most moderate

changes:--the reduction of the number transported to Van Diemen's Land

to the standard of 1840; the amelioration of the discipline; the relief

of the settlers from the expense occasioned by the presence of

prisoners; and the gradual and total abolition of transportation. It was

not adopted at a public meeting, but was published in several

newspapers, and deliberately signed by those who admitted its facts and

joined in its prayer. Upwards of 1,700 persons attached their names,

including six non-official councillors, forty-one magistrates, and many

other persons of influence.

The committee who took charge of the petition requested the governor

would testify to the truth of its allegations and the respectability of

the petitioners. In few words he promised compliance. He accompanied the

petition with a despatch generally hostile to the object and unfriendly

to the character of the subscribers, whom he described as men habitually

factious, and who attributed their difficulties to any cause but the

right. He asserted that their colonial property was trifling, and that

they were encumbered with debt. He ascribed their discontent to

insolvency, and their embarrassment to extravagance and speculation. He

disputed most of their statements--distinguished between them and the

more respectable majority against them--and stated that the number of

signatures was due to the indolent facility with which such documents

were signed. This despatch (August 1, 1845) was printed for the use of

parliament, and soon came into the hands of the colonists. The absence

of constitutional channels for the expression of their dissatisfaction

led them to a measure which would otherwise be deemed an extreme one.

Sir E. Wilmot was the patron of the Midland Agricultural Association, a

body including much of the wealth and influence of the colony. They were

convened by certain of the members, and the obnoxious despatch was laid

before them. An animated and indignant debate terminated in the removal

of Wilmot from his place as their patron. No prudent colonist would

desire to see this precedent often followed. The distinction between a

governor as the head of the social circle and as the chief of a

political body will be more readily apprehended when his power shall be

less absolute, and his secret advice no longer over-ride the wishes and

interests of the people.

Having filled up the vacancies in the legislative council, Sir E. Wilmot

called them together. It appeared that money had been provided and

appropriated, and a pledge given to the bank to confirm the contract in

the council. It was intended to issue debentures, and thus settle

out-standing accounts. Messrs. Reed and Hopkins offered to this scheme a

decided opposition, and being unsuccessful, they resigned their seats.

The English government at length agreed to pay £24,000 per annum towards

the police expenditure, but at the same time excepted the waste lands of

the island from the general system. The land fund, elsewhere given up

for the benefit of the colony, was assumed by the lords of the treasury.

It was contemplated to employ convicts in clearing and cultivating, and

by the sale of land to indemnify the crown for the outlay. The governor

was authorised by the secretary of state to allot portions of land to

ticket-of-leave holders,--a measure offensive to the settlers in

general, and found to be impracticable.

The legislative council passed several acts of great colonial

consequence. The Abolition of Differential Duties Bill (July, '46)

exacted the 15 per cent, _ad valorem_ on colonial commerce, in obedience

to the policy of ministers. Thus the inter-colonial trade was loaded

with burdens of great severity, and in many instances it was cheaper to

send raw material to London and import English, than to exchange

colonial manufactures. The measure was welcomed by some sheep-holding

members as a tax on Port Phillip sheep, but the government disclaimed

any other object than the increase of the revenue. A heavy retaliatory

rate was then imposed by the New South Wales legislature. They however

addressed their governor to obtain, if possible, a disallowance of the

exactions of Wilmot. Messrs. Dunn, Orr, and Stieglitz entered their

protest against the bill, and avowed the principles of free trade.

A bill for electing commissioners of paving and lighting for the city of

Hobart passed the council (August, '46), and although disliked as an

indirect scheme of taxation, was not unpopular. The first election under

it occasioned a keen competition and considerable excitement. It was the

first instance of representation, but the bill made no provision for a

scrutiny, and the returning officer declared the poll against the

protests of the defeated candidates. Many fictitious votes had swollen

the numbers of their antagonists. The commissioners sat for some months,

and gave exemplary attention to their duties; but when the time came for

rating the city, the defect of their election appalled them. This

objection was long foreseen. An election without a scrutiny might not be

founded on one valid vote. The government, unwilling to admit the defect

of the bill, did not attempt to reform its details, and at length it

fell into disuetude.

A measure of still greater ultimate importance was enacted by the

council, intended "to restrict the increase of dogs." A heavy tax was

imposed on the keepers of this indispensable protector of house and

fold. The multitude running about the streets was felt to be a nuisance,

and the destruction of flocks required some check; but the frame-work

of the bill was objectionable, and the charge excessive. It will be seen

hereafter that the tax occasioned the most serious disputes.

The administration of Sir E. Wilmot was, however, suddenly brought to a

close. Reports, forwarded by Mr. Forster, and adopted by the governor,

extolled the outlines of Lord Stanley's system, while events were

constantly occurring which, amply sustained by respectable testimony,

demonstrated its sad consequences. Evils of a serious nature were

extensively prevalent,--some, inseparable from every scheme of penal

discipline, others aggravated by the excessive dimensions of the

probation system, and not a few the result of the failure of demand for

labor. The worst effects of sensuality were the most alarming feature of

the system, but even they were probably only more flagrant because the

extent of transportation gave them a wider range. Remedial measures

demanded an outlay and inspection which the instructions of the home

government had prohibited in language the most distinct. The ministers,

having tied up the governor's hands, complained that he had carried

economy to a pernicious extent, and in reporting the state of the

prisoners, had passed over important questions. But those who examine

the despatches of Wilmot with care will be compelled to question the

accuracy of these complaints. There is scarcely an evil which the

progress of the scheme unfolded that he did not admit and illustrate.

These evils he thought partly accidental and partly inevitable in all

penal schemes; but still he maintained that, with all its defects, the

probation system, as such, was the best ever devised by the British

ministry. Lord Stanley indeed stated that in "five reports from Captain

Forster and seventeen despatches from Wilmot, he had either received no

intelligence or that their remarks were casual, slight, and few." Thus

at the end of three years he found himself destitute of any clear

understanding in reference to the conclusions which Mr. Forster, as the

immediate agent, or the governor, as the chief superintendent, must have

formed respecting the soundness of the principles or the wisdom of the

plans which both had been called upon to administer (September, '45). It

was thus apparent that the colonial-office held the governor responsible

not only for obedience to positive instructions, but for their results;

and that, in the event of a sacrifice being required, the officers on

the spot would be devoted: and so it happened.

In closing the session (September, 1845) Sir E. Wilmot announced his

recall. Although not usual then to address the council, he stated that

he could not permit the members to disperse without acknowledging their

assistance. A delusion for a time might expose a public man to popular

injustice; but however misjudged, either during his life-time or after

death, his character would require no other vindication than truth would

afford. He informed them that his recall was not occasioned by his

differences with the late members, but was ascribed to an imputed

neglect of the moral and religious welfare of the prisoners; and he

added, that the memory of their kindness would remain with him during

the short remainder of his life.

Mr. Gladstone, who had received the seals of office, conveyed to Wilmot

the notice of his removal. The despatch is a singular example of its

author's mental habits. While he complained that the governor's

statements were obscure, he gave his own views in odd and scarcely

intelligible terms. Thus, the governor had adverted to the moral

condition of the convicts "in a manner too little penetrating:" he had

not made it a point of his duty "to examine the inner world of their

mental, moral, and spiritual state." Mr. Gladstone charged him with

neglecting the vices of the stations--an error in judgment so serious as

to render his removal imperative. These whimsical terms of reprobation

excited universal astonishment. Practical men felt that the knowledge of

the thirty thousand prisoners except by their conduct, to be ascertained

by collating statistics, was rather more difficult than the hopeless

task of similar investigations in ordinary life. The English press, with

some truth and bitterness, described such demands as an encouragement of

hypocrisy and religious pretence. No wise or good man will discredit

religious teaching, but all such will look with suspicion, if not dread,

and even disgust, on the statistics of prison piety--generally false and

designing, in proportion as it is loud and ostentatious. The defects of

the governor as a legislator were not taken into account. Mr. Gladstone

indeed attempted to balance with much precision the merits of the

patriotic six. He admitted that advice and assistance to the Queen might

sometimes take the form of strenuous opposition to the executive. He

denied the distinction between the offices of an elective and of a

nominee legislator--between a council of advice and a representative

legislature. He doubted whether Wilmot had properly calculated the

difficulties which would follow the passing of the estimates, or the

sympathy which the six would receive from the people. He censured mildly

the accusation of disloyalty, but at the same time he stated the quarrel

with the six was in no degree the cause of the recall.

In his last address to the council Wilmot alluded to the benign

influence of time on a slandered reputation. This was soon after

explained. Mr. Secretary Gladstone had accompanied the recall with a

private letter which stated that rumors reflecting on the governor's

moral character had reached the colonial-office, of a nature to hinder

his future employment. Nothing specific was stated, and no clue to

enquiry given. Rumors had been long current, and they were spread with

activity. The _Atlas_, a Sydney journal, compared the governor to the

tyrant of Capreæ, and referred to his private habits with expressions of

disgust. Remarks of a similar tendency appeared in a London periodical.

It stated that the conduct of Wilmot excluded the respectable

inhabitants of Hobart from his society, and made it impossible for

ladies to enter his house. This was instantly rebutted by Sir John

Pedder and other official persons, who declared their entire disbelief

in these charges.

Wilmot conjured Mr. Gladstone to state the time, place, and

circumstances, the names of his accusers, and the exact nature of their

imputations. In reply he observed that the persons who mentioned these

rumors did not profess to support their credit by any statement of

particulars, but to found them on general notoriety. He added that it

"was not in his power to convey what he had not received." In the House

of Commons a fuller explanation was afterwards given, in a discussion

raised by Mr. Spooner, a Warwickshire member. It was then stated that

the authors of the report were persons in the service of the crown, both

in England and in the colony, and its effect, that the accused was

living in scarcely concealed concubinage with several women. These

preposterous imputations melted away the moment they were touched. Sir

Robert Peel, an old neighbor of Wilmot, was highly displeased with the

interference of Mr. Gladstone, and pronounced the charges unworthy of

belief. The eldest son of Wilmot appealed to Earl Grey for a formal

vindication, but he declined expressing an opinion, although earnestly

pressed; and excused himself by alleging that, independently of this

charge, there was ample justification of the recall. It would have been

no great stretch of generosity had a minister admitted that rumors set

up as a bar to employment were no longer barriers to the confidence of

the crown. Mr. Chester, a brother of Lady Wilmot, transmitted an

address[247] presented to Sir Eardley to the Bishop of Tasmania, for his

remarks. He replied he could not tell to what reports it alluded, and

could not contradict them; but that rumors of the kind had fallen under

his observation which he had proved to be groundless: charges had been

whispered, but none had been substantiated (May, '47).

The reports in disparagement of Wilmot originated in the freedom of his

address--perfectly innocent in itself, but liable to misconstruction.

The credit they received depended entirely on the party sympathies of

the listener, and they grew as they went. No one, however, attached much

importance to them on the spot. Mr. Gladstone was condemned for

entertaining them. He seems more worthy of censure for his indefinite

method of stating their nature and the authority on which they rested.

The moral character of a governor is of moment to a colony, and a just

consideration in his appointment; but when assailed it should certainly

have all the protection of a full and open enquiry.

No governor ever was more unfortunate in his political position. He

could only tax and restrain. There was nothing in his gift. To the

substantial difficulties of the people around him he was unable to offer

more than those general assurances which often exasperate rather than

console. The state of religious parties increased his disquiet. He had

to adjust the claims of churches to spiritual authority. In declining to

erect ecclesiastical courts Wilmot not only gratified many, but he

followed the direction of his legal advisers.