Sir Eardley Wilmot, like most governors, considered himself the servant

of the crown, restrained in his discretion by absolute and specific

instructions. Had Lord Stanley acted with prudence he would have left

much to Wilmot's judgment; but just before he had dilated with vast

perspicacity on the tendency of governors to act in behalf of the

colonists, to forget imperial interests, to misapply the funds and

pervert the labor belonging to the crown. The precision of his

injunctions left no alternative but to obey. Had Wilmot at once declared

the impracticability of Lord Stanley's schemes he might have been

recalled, but the responsibility of an utter failure would have rested

with his chief. The interested reports of his subordinate officers

unfortunately enabled him to hold out hopes of success which were never

realised and to furnish an excuse for his condemnation. The governor was

impatient of contradiction. He had been accustomed to debate; but the

sarcasm which falls harmless on the floor of St. Stephen's Chapel, in a

colony cuts to the bone. He forgot that the head of a government can

hardly say too little of men or measures. In a conflict of words, to an

executive chief victory and defeat are alike pernicious.

The usual order had been given that the governor, during his residence

in the colony, should enjoy the complimentary distinctions of office. It

was commonly understood that his stay would be prolonged; but he died

soon after his retirement (Feb. 3, 1847), in the sixty-fourth year of

his age. The treatment he had received from the colonial-office, and his

death far from the honored sepulchre of his fathers and the scenes of

his early political fame, produced a general sentiment of regret. All

the houses of business showed marks of mourning. A public funeral,

attended by the administrator and the newly-arrived governor, was

thronged by the citizens. It had been officially arranged that, except

the ministering priest, the clergy of all denominations should walk in

their several classes, but in one body, and the archdeacon, the

moderator, and the vicar-general, as representatives of the three

endowed churches, abreast. The Anglican clergy evaded this plan by

stepping up before the coffin. When, however, the bearers were in

motion, the catholic priests, by a rapid evolution, shot a-head of the

procession. An ornamented Gothic tomb was erected in St. David's

burial-ground to the memory of Sir Eardley Wilmot by subscription. It

stands near the highway. His remains were interred close to the tomb of

Collins.

Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot was descended from the ancient family of

Eardley of Audely, Staffordshire. He was grandson of Wilmot, lord chief

justice of the court of common pleas--a judge celebrated for justice and

piety. Sir E. Wilmot was twice married,--first to Elizabeth, daughter of

Dr. Parry, of Bath; and afterwards to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir R.

Chester, of Bush Hall, Staffordshire.

Charles Joseph Latrobe, Esq., Superintendent of the Port Phillip

District, and subsequently first governor of that territory, now called

Victoria, superseded Sir E. Wilmot (October 13, 1846). During his short

stay as "administrator" he was employed in a careful scrutiny of the

probation department. In performing this difficult duty he displayed

exemplary activity and decision. He resolved to remove every officer

chargeable with incapacity or neglect, and thus many were dismissed.

This promptitude exposed him to imputations of harshness; but although

it is probable he did not wholly escape errors of judgment, the chief

acts of his administration were amply vindicated by the facts he saw.

The opinions he expressed sustained the colonial impressions respecting

the convict system. While he suggested many improvements in its details,

he concurred with the general wish for its extinction. Mr. Latrobe never

met the legislative council; and his government being limited to the

established routine, left nothing to record.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 246: Motion proposed October 28, 1845.]

[Footnote 247: The following is the address, to which 250 names were

appended:--"To Sir J. E. E. Wilmot, Bart.--We the undersigned,

inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land, having heard that your recall has been

influenced by reports injurious to your moral character, during your

administration of the government of this colony, deem it to be a duty

which we owe to truth and justice to express our unqualified

contradiction of those reports, and we feel the more imperatively called

upon to do so, from the fact of many of us having differed in opinion

upon various measures of your government. Upon the occasion of your

retirement into private life, we have to assure you that you carry with

you our best wishes for your future welfare."]

HISTORY OF TASMANIA.

FROM 1847 TO 1852.

FROM 1847 TO 1852.

SECTION I.

Sir William Thomas Denison, Knight, Captain of the Royal Engineers,

presented his commission, January 26th, 1847. He had been employed in

the dock-yards, and in the survey of important public works. His eminent

abilities in a department connected with the employment of prisoners,

not less than his respectable connexions, led to his nomination. His

professional habits had not qualified him equally for civil affairs; but

the chief object proposed by the minister, Mr. Gladstone, was the better

disposal of prison labor, and the more effectual control of the

convicts. Sir William entered on his office with less acclamation than

usual. The changes had been too rapid and unfortunate to encourage much

enthusiasm.

Before his embarkation the secretary of state instructed Sir W. Denison

to arrange the dispute with the late councillors, and the claims of the

gentlemen who occupied their places after their resignation. He was

informed that the conduct of both sets of legislators had received the

royal approbation. It was left to his discretion to select six out of

the whole number to complete the council. They were summoned to the

government-house to hear the minister's decision, and were requested to

decide among themselves who should be honored with a seat. This

experiment failed. An altercation ensued, and some quitted the

conference. The "six" adhered to each other, and Sir W. Denison

ultimately declared the appointments of Wilmot were disallowed, and

re-appointed the "patriotic six." The gentlemen rejected were advised

that they held their office until superseded by commands under the

sign-manual. In this opinion the chief justice concurred; but, pursuing

the scrutiny, it was found that some nominations of Wilmot had been

informal, the instrument not stating to whom they succeeded. Their

claims being quashed by this discovery, the "patriotic six" were again

appointed in succession to each other,--a transposition required by the

law. At this stage, however, Mr. Orr, who entered the council some time

after the rupture, produced his appointment, which, unlike certain

others, was expressed in the legal form. Thus again all the previous

proceedings were quashed; and the governor, unable to unravel the

difficulty, dismissed the council, to await instructions from

Downing-street, or a warrant for the nominees under the sign-manual of

the Queen (July, 1847). Thus during 1847 there was no legislature

sitting, but at length the _Gazette_ announced that the Queen had

reinstated the original six (1848).

It has been seen that under the government of Sir E. Wilmot an act was

passed to restrict the increase of dogs, and another levying 15 per

cent. duties. The owners of dogs were required to take out a license,

and the proceeds of the tax were carried to the general revenue. Some of

the settlers never complied with this ordinance, and others paid under

protest. According to the opinion of several lawyers the council by this

enactment had exceeded its powers. The act of parliament by which the

council was constituted contained a provision to the effect that a tax

should be levied only for local purposes, "to be distinctly and

particularly stated in the body of the bill." It was contended that the

restriction was violated, since the Dog Act contained no specific

appropriation, and the amount was carried to the general revenue. The

government, willing to avoid the trial of this point, did not hasten to

enforce the penalty. It was understood that Judge Montagu had not

obtained a license for dogs on his premises, and Mr. Morgan, then editor

of the _Britannia_, announced to the government that he was an owner of

dogs, that he had paid no license fee, and intended to pay none. The

chief constable was directed to recover the penalties. Mr. Morgan being

fined, appealed to the quarter sessions, and then to the supreme court.

The judges, having heard the arguments of counsel, declared that the Dog

Act imposed a tax and exceeded the powers of the council. They therefore

annulled the decision of the inferior courts (Nov. 22, 1847).

The views which dictated this judgment affected a more important

act--the Differential Duties. Several merchants paid these charges under

protest, and entered their suit for recovery. A revenue of £20,000 per

annum was thus in peril. It was stated by the governor and crown

lawyers that the judges themselves had passed the lawful limits of their

jurisdiction, unsettled the whole body of colonial law, encouraged

opposition to the government, and exposed its agents to vexatious

prosecutions. The governor was determined to resist their judgment. The

warrants for the members of the council had not arrived. Thus recourse

to the legislature was impracticable, and the most obvious remedy was

the removal of the judges, and the substitution of others, whose

opinions were known to agree with the executive. The judges were

charged, therefore, with a neglect of duty in omitting, as authorised by

the law, to certify illegality in the Act prior to its enrolment; and by

permitting the question of an act of council, they were said to override

the legislature.[248]

Pending this dispute, a creditor of Mr. Justice Montagu sued him for

£200. The privilege of his office presented a legal obstacle to the

suit. This being decided by the chief justice, the creditor applied to

the governor for relief. Mr. Montagu alleged an understanding, which in

equity released him from immediate liability. The governor charged him

with perverting the protection of his office, to defeat his creditors,

and amoved him. Mr. Horne, the attorney-general, who framed the acts

repudiated by the judges, was appointed to succeed Judge Montagu, and it

became a question whether his opinion would send the merchants out of

court. The registrar of the supreme court was called before the

executive council, and questioned on the point. He stated that in the

event of a division of opinion on the bench a verdict for the plaintiff

would stand. To the suspension of the chief justice the executive

council were opposed, and Sir Wm. Denison therefore requested the judge

to relieve the government by asking leave of absence. To this he replied

in terms suited to the respectability of his character. "Were I," said

his honor, "to accept your excellency's proposal, I should, it appears

to me, be for ever after degraded, and, _ipso facto_, render myself

unworthy of holding the lowest office or employment which it is in her

Majesty's power to bestow on a subject."[249] At this stage of the

proceedings the warrant constituting the legislative councillors reached

the governor, and the opinion of the chief justice was of less moment to

the executive.

It now remained for the governor to annul either the laws opposed to the

provisions of the parliamentary act, which declared the taxing clauses

illegal, or to subvert those restrictions by declaring them inoperative.

He chose this last course. The Doubts Bill declared that an ordinance

once enrolled, whatever its provisions, or however repugnant to common

law or parliamentary acts, should be held binding on the court; and

although its rejection was proposed by the chief justice and five other

members, it passed the legislative council.

That the "Doubts Bill," so called, was inconsistent with the limitations

of the council, has been virtually determined by a retrospective clause

in the recent constitutional act, which cures the defect of these taxing

clauses, and takes the question of legality from the future judgment of

the court. By the act of 9 Geo. IV., sec. 83, the governor possessed

powers sufficiently ample to pass, without notice or delay, any measure,

and to adhere to its provisions in a pressing emergency; but the

prohibition of taxes, for all but strictly local purposes, was

peremptory and explicit.

An instance of rapid legislation contemplated by the act, occurred

(1843) when Dr. Turnbull held the office of sheriff. More cautious than

his predecessor, he closely examined his commission, and discovered that

the seal of the colony had been attached, and not that of the governor,

as required by the charter of justice. This error had been made in

successive commissions for many years. Every execution--criminal or

civil--had been therefore illegal. At one sitting of the council the act

of indemnity was passed, and all proceedings affected by the mistake

were declared valid. The propriety of this promptitude was indisputable.

The chief justice left the representation of his conduct to the

governor. His treatment was the subject of keen censure in the commons;

and by an unpublished despatch--the nature, not the terms of which

transpired--Sir Wm. Denison was informed, and through him, the chief

justice, that his conduct to this judge was decidedly reprehended by the

crown. Mr. Horne's appointment and the amoval of Mr. Montagu were

confirmed. Mr. Justice Montagu was an acute, eloquent, and impartial

judge, but passionate and eccentric. His imprudence exposed him to a

proceeding which, in the circumstances, it is difficult to approve, and,

on general principles, not easy to condemn. The chief justice stood

still higher in public estimation. For nearly thirty years he occupied a

station of awful responsibility with a reputation unsullied, in a court

where every variety of legal knowledge has been in demand and a vast

amount of toil endured. Among the blessings which the British

constitution bestows foremost of all is the freedom of the

judgment-seat; and few political faults are less capable of palliation

than a deliberate attempt to subject a judge to the influence of the

executive.

A minute addressed to the legislative council charged the merchants with

forgetting the duty they owed to society, when they offered resistance

to the tax. They, however, maintained that every illegal demand is

spoliation, and claimed a right to protect themselves and the public

from its operation. Fifteen hundred persons signed a petition

deprecating the interference of the executive with the supreme court.

They asserted their conviction that the removal of Judge Montagu was

occasioned by his decision on the Dog Act, and the desire to replace him

by a more pliant judge. These various remonstrances had no effect on the

ministers, and the entire course of the governor was approved, except

the attempted coercion of the chief justice. The position of the

government was one of considerable embarrassment. It was the

unquestionable right of those affected to oppose the execution of

illegal ordinances; but no blame would have rested with the governor had

he amended them without removing the land-marks of the colonial

constitution.

A minute acquaintance with colonial history would justify the belief

that appeal to Downing-street against the conduct of governors is

utterly futile. When the dispute is between persons high in office the

established policy does not predicate the result; but when a mere

colonist complains he will find no precedent in Australian experience to

cheer him in his task. Gross instances of oppression have not

infrequently occurred; but in the Australian journals of half a century

no example is recorded of a governor's recall on such grounds, or of

such a censure on his conduct as might influence the habits of colonial

rulers. An opposite course would be inconvenient--perhaps dangerous. As

a choice of evils, it is better that the colonists should despair of

redress than to encourage the discontented to harrass the representative

of the crown. A result so invariable, however, proves that a

colonial-office cannot protect the Australian people. This futility of

appeal is more striking when the local authorities are protected by a

laborious despatch writer. The subtle arrangement of facts and

inferences suggests without appearing to dictate the judgment of the

office. These papers first fall into the hands of subordinate officials,

who feel a natural antipathy to colonists, whose established character

is turbulent, rapacious, and democratic. In the multiplicity of

business, comprehending the affairs of forty colonies, the responsible

minister can know little of details, and that little he must rapidly

forget. Thus, when a question is proposed, he asks time to refresh his

memory. A pungent passage or epithet, wholly irrelevant to the real

merits of the dispute, is drawn from these documents. It was thus when

the quarrel between the executive and judges was debated in the house.

The minister, having read in a despatch that the decision of the judge

would disorganise the body of law, represented the colony as a scene of

turbulence, when not a single step had been taken but the courts of

Westminster would have approved. But the house was equally ill informed.

It readily acquiesced: the conversation dropped, and the despatch

triumphed. No governors have stood so high in the colonial-office as

despatch writers; whether that ability in epistolary correspondence

implies general superiority, or that they beguile the minister of his

judgment by the subtlety or wisdom of their political disquisitions.

The petitions for representative government, repeated for more than

twenty years, and which strongly interested the sympathy of all classes,

were renewed with increasing hope of success from 1846 to 1850. The

ministers, though admitting the abstract value of the privilege,

hesitated while the great preponderance of convicts seemed to require an

absolute authority. This feeling was not overcome until the accession of

Lord Grey, who saw no danger in conceding to the free population the

common rights of Englishmen. A variety of plans were submitted at

different times to the parliament and ministry, to secure colonial

representation. Mr. Joseph Hume suggested (1832) the admission of a

certain number of representatives chosen in the colonies to seats in the

House of Commons; in all nineteen, one being for Australia,--a measure

once suggested for the old American colonies; but the distance in both

cases, and expenses of transit, would not easily have admitted effective

representation or perfect responsibility. Sir John Franklin suggested

(1839) a legislature, to consist of twenty-one members, one third

nominated by the crown, and the remainder elected by persons holding the

qualification of common jurors. He gave a generous testimony to the

intelligence and probity of the settlers, and alleged that they would

bear comparison with corresponding classes within any dominions of the

crown.[250]

In 1843 the legislature of New South Wales was constituted. Originally a

nominee council, the popular element was infused by two thirds being

elective members. A civil list was reserved, and the disposal of

territorial revenues withheld; but the partial liberty enjoyed was used

with discretion and effect. The bill enjoined the establishment of

district councils, authorised to superintend internal affairs, and to

fulfil many of the functions of municipal bodies. They were, however,

never called into action. The scattered inhabitants found it difficult

to assemble, and more so to reconcile their neighbors to local taxation.

The machinery of the councils was set in motion only to defeat their

design. Thus the legislative body retained in its hands the whole power

which it had been intended to balance and check by the petty councils.

Port Phillip, however, then a part of New South Wales, but more distant

from the metropolis than England from Rome, was represented in a council

sitting at Sydney. The loss of time required disinclined most gentlemen

to undertake the representation, and those chosen were chiefly resident

in New South Wales proper. Their numbers were too small for effectual

action, and their sympathies were divided between their constituents and

their neighbors. The revenues raised at Victoria were expended to some

extent in the elder city, and the superintendent of Port Phillip had

little influence and less power in the government. The popular

dissatisfaction, which led to some unavailing petitions to the crown,

took a curious form. Thus, in 1848, the electors met at the hustings and

discountenanced the appearance of a candidate, and after waiting an

hour, the returning officer announced that no member had been returned.

On meeting for the election of a member for the city Earl Grey was

chosen. The governor and superintendent considered this proceeding a

disgraceful farce. The law officers could not question its legality, and

the secretary of state was for two years member for Melbourne, without,

however, taking his seat. Mr. Westgarth, a merchant of tried

intelligence and public spirit, was chosen afterwards, and was presented

to the house "in the room of the Right Hon. Henry Grey, Earl Grey."

Sir Wm. Denison was instructed to report on the subject of an elective

legislature for Van Diemen's Land. He furnished Lord Grey with various

opinions and suggestions. He had recommended a frame-work, the

counterpart of the New South Wales assembly, only, however, that he

deemed it undesirable for colonies so contiguous to differ in their

institutions. The experience of the Tasmanian legislative council had,

he asserted, assisted him in forming an opinion on the character of the

people. "When we see," said Sir William, "the low estimate which is

placed upon every thing which can distinguish a man from his fellows,

with the sole exception of wealth; when we see that even wealth does not

lead to distinction, or open the road to any other ambition save that

of excelling in habits of self-indulgence,--it can be hardly a subject

of surprise that so few rise above the general level, or that those few

owe more to the possession of a certain oratorical facility than to

their powers of mind or the justness of the opinions they advocate."

"There is an essentially democratic spirit, which actuates a large mass

of the community; and it is with a view to check the development of this

spirit that I would suggest the formation of an upper chamber." Sir

William Denison suggested that bishops might be members of an upper

house, and certain _ex officio_ representatives of government; the rest,

whether nominated by the crown or elected by the people, to hold their

seats for life.[251]

By a despatch to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, Earl Grey expounded a new

constitutional system for the colonies. It was zealously opposed in New

South Wales. The people complained that the change in the constitution

without their consent was an infringement of their vested rights, and

disrespectful to their legislature. They objected strongly to a plan

which made the district councils the electors of the assembly. They

repudiated the statement that their legislature had absorbed all the

powers of "the colonial state," and the checks and balance contemplated

by the original constitutional act. These views were sustained by the

legislature itself. The idea of two chambers was approved by the

majority, but most elected members were against it.

The plans of Earl Grey and the correspondence and petitions they

produced were referred to the committee of the Privy Council, and the

report adopted recognised all the great principles of British government

except the full control of the expenditure (1849). This able paper

recommended legislative councils for all colonies capable of supporting

a civil list, one third nominees, and the remainder chosen by the

people. The division of the legislature into separate chambers it

resigned to the judgment of the colonies. It suggested a federal

assembly for the general interest of the Australias, having its action

closely defined. The "House of Delegates," to consist of not less than

twenty nor more than thirty, were distributed--to each colony two, and

one additional for every fifteen-thousand souls. This plan of government

was differently regarded in different colonies. The elder condemned its

restrictions: the younger rejoiced in the prospect of new franchises,

and trusted to time to enlarge their liberties. The general opinion of

intelligent men was favorable to the division of the legislature, but

the colonies were not capable of supplying the elements of nobility.

Some aspiring persons desired a little house of peers, others the

appointment of senators by the crown, and for life: a greater number

were convinced that the legislature should be elective throughout. The

social equality of settlers who landed together could not be forgotten

in the diversities of their colonial fortune. The first collision of

opinion would bring the machinery of double chambers to a dead lock, and

no interposing power could adjust the dislocated frame-work. A stoppage

of supplies would follow the first impulses of resentment. In English

representation it is the last remedy, but then it betokens the dismissal

of a minister or the downfall of a dynasty.

The colonial press generally approved the ministerial bill, not as a

measure approaching perfection, but for some favorite object it was

calculated to hasten. It was hailed at Port Phillip because it secured

separation from Sydney; at South Australia, as certain to terminate the

ecclesiastical endowments; and in Van Diemen's Land it was welcomed,

with all its faults, as the engine sure to destroy transportation. Thus

the Colonial Reform Society, which attempted to defeat the government

measure, found little sympathy beyond New South Wales, where the change

gave nothing. The ministers interpreted the satisfaction of the colonies

as a testimony to their skill, not detestation of their government. The

real cause of colonial delight was the severance of their chains, and

the certainty that when broken all the power of Europe could never renew

them.

The bill suffered some mutilations in its passage to the throne. The

federal clauses were expunged. The local governors were opposed to the

establishment of an assembly of delegates, which would have overruled

their individual policy. They were fearful of compromising their

revenues by permitting to New South Wales the preponderance of members.

These objections, not indeed without weight, and, still more, the

jealousy of the conservatives of an organisation which seemed but a

prelude to independence, despoiled the measure of a provision which,

however modified, must be ultimately restored. A reduction of the

franchise of the bill from £20 to £10, nearly equal to household

suffrage, was, however, the most considerable change. It was suggested

by Mr. R. Lowe, to bear down an opulent emancipist interest in New South

Wales. It was expected to give irresistible power to that class in Van

Diemen's Land. The bill was carried through the lords by a trifling

majority in a thin house. The fate of a young empire but slightly moved

the British peerage. It received the royal assent, August 5th, 1850.

When the bill arrived the joy of Port Phillip was unbounded. Several

days were devoted to processions and feasting. Numberless devices were

exhibited, displaying the political bias of the people. Many thousand

pounds were spent in the festivities. A similar though less magnificent

display was made in Van Diemen's Land. All ranks were inclined to forget

their differences, and public dinners, at which many hundreds were

guests, celebrated the constitutional victory.

Lord John Russell, on the second reading of the bill, explained his

opinions, which, whether or not consistent with the ministerial measure,

were worthy his station and political renown. "I anticipate with

others," he said, "that some of our colonies may so grow in wealth and

population that they may feel themselves strong enough to maintain their

own independence in amity and alliance with Great Britain. I do not

think that that time is yet approaching. But let us make them, as fast

as possible, fit to govern themselves. Let us give them, as far as we

can, the capacity of ruling their own affairs. Let them increase in

wealth and population; and, whatever may happen, we of this great empire

will have the consolation of saying that we have increased the happiness

of the world." Such sentiments tend to extinguish the desire to quit a

political connection rendered honorable by terms so nobly expressed by

the first minister of the crown, and which, if fairly carried out, will

make the colonies cling with fondness to a nation so magnanimous as to

greet them with applause.

In 1846-7 important additions were made to the educational means of the

colony. An episcopal institution, called Christ's College, was formed at

Bishopsbourne. Scholarships were founded by the medical, military, and

clerical professions, and divinity fellowships endowed (1846). Lord

Stanley recommended the establishment of a proprietary high school, open

on equal terms to all denominations, and promised the patronage of the

crown. The site reserved for this purpose at Hobart Town was granted by

Sir W. Denison to the episcopalians, for the Hutchins' school. This

alienation was deemed unjust. Instead, however, of wasting time in

unavailing complaints, the friends of education were convened by Mr. H.

Hopkins, an opulent merchant, when a prospectus was submitted by the

Rev. Dr. Lillie and J. West. A thousand pounds were subscribed in the

room, and in five weeks £5000 (1847). The first conspicuous object seen

by the stranger on entering the river is the High School of

Hobarton,--an edifice erected amidst enchanting scenery, on a site

granted by the crown, and possessing architectural attractions which

have yet to be equalled in this hemisphere. The institution is managed

by a council of nine, chosen by the shareholders. The Rector, nominated

by the London University, was the Rev. J. B. Froude, author of the

"Nemesis of Faith,"--a publication which led to his instant resignation.

James Eccleston, Esq., appointed in his stead, survived the opening of

the school only one month. A thousand pounds were subscribed for his

widow.

Thus the activity of private zeal effected the objects contemplated by

legislative interference. The growth of population will give ample scope

for these various institutions, and extinguish all but a wholesome

rivalry.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 248: The council derived their powers from the Act 9 of George

IV., c. 83. They were permitted to enact ordinances "for the good

government of the colony," but they were forbidden to impose taxes,

except for local purposes; and they were ordered to state "distinctly

and particularly in the body" of every law the purposes to which the tax

should be applied; and thus to prevent the evasion of the prohibitory

clause intended to protect the subject. It was not worth while to

enquire whether the view of the judges of the legality of the act in the

case of Symons _v._ Morgan was in harmony with the parliamentary act,

because the question merged in one of much greater importance--Whether

they could take that act into consideration at all? It was of far more

consequence to know whether the colony had a remedy against the

usurpation of the legislative council, than to decide whether Messrs.

Horne and Fleming were better lawyers than Sir John Pedder and Mr.

Justice Montagu. "The powers of a subordinate legislature," says a

distinguished writer, "are expressly or tacitly delegated by the supreme

government. In order, therefore, to determine whether an act of the

legislature has a binding force, it is necessary to look at the extent

of the delegation. If the act be not within the scope of the delegation,

it is without binding force, and can be annulled before a competent

tribunal" (Lewis on Dependencies). Sir Wm. Denison stated that the

silence of the Judges for fourteen days after the act was

passed,--whatever might have been the cause of that silence--ignorance,

indolence, sickness, or corruption,--rendered the most unlawful stretch

of power on the part of the council, including the total subversion of

all the limitary clauses, binding upon the colony, and if sanctioned by

the Queen, through the same ministerial inadvertence or corruption,

binding for ever. Judging of the intentions of parliament by the general

character of colonial legislation and by the cautious wording of this

act, it could scarcely be imagined that they suspended the public safety

on such a thread. That Englishmen should be deprived of their rights,

without the possibility of appeal, by the inadvertence of a judge--not

sitting in a court of justice, but in his own chamber--would be to

legislate by accident. Sir Wm. Denison relied on the despatch of Sir

George Murray (1828), which accompanied the Act 9 Geo. IV., known as the

"Huskisson Act." The former practice was to require the governor to

submit to the judge the draft of a bill before it was laid upon the

table of the council chamber, no principle of colonial law being more

"firmly established than that a colonial legislature cannot enact

statutes repugnant to the law of England." The judge (he said) "might

have found himself often required in open court to deny the validity of

a colonial ordinance, on the ground of repugnancy." By the Act in

question "provision was made for fully learning the views of the judges

upon the law, and for preventing their refusing to execute any law that

may be passed after a full consideration of their objections." Thus it

was intended to "combine, as far as possible, the advantage of a strict

observance of a general rule, and a harmony between the judges and the

legislature." It was therefore clear that the power given to the judges

to stop the enforcement of any illegal ordinance continued until their

objections--whenever and wherever they might arise--had been "fully

considered."--_Hobart Town Courier._]

[Footnote 249: Parl. papers, July. 1848.]

[Footnote 250: Despatch, August, 1838.]

[Footnote 251: Despatch to Earl Grey, 1848.]

SECTION II.

It now remains to record the most important colonial agitation of modern

times. The opposition of Van Diemen's Land to a system reprobated by

mankind--too long despised--awakened everywhere resistance to

transportation; and, assisted by the discovery of gold fields of vast

extent and opulence, will change the penal policy of the British empire.

In the progress of the struggle all classes ranged on the same side.

Parents thought of their children--patriots of their country. Every

legislature of this hemisphere has expressed the popular will and

demanded abolition, and the final triumph only awaits the fiat of the

crown. The steps of the colonists have been cautious and deliberate,

their perseverence and energy indomitable! Their success has been

chequered by frequent disappointment, but never was a battle more nobly

fought--never was there a cause more worthy of triumph.

Mr. McLachlan, long a resident in Van Diemen's Land, judged the plans of

Lord Stanley by the test of experience, and warned the minister of their

too certain results. Other colonists in England corroborated his views

and enforced his representation. Mr. Smith, a colonist of long standing,

obtained an audience at Downing-street. He described the social dangers

which environed the settlers. "I confess," said the noble lord, "that

you are in an awful position."

The representation forwarded by Mr. Pitcairn and his coadjutors was

intrusted to Mr. M'Lachlan's care. The press of England took the side of

the oppressed, and the inexorable office was obliged to listen, to

argue, and retract.

There was, however, one result of his scheme which moved the

susceptibilities of Lord Stanley himself. He shrank from the

"intolerable evils of a breach of faith" with the exiles of Great

Britain. They had been encouraged to expect high wages and ready

employment. Such was the fair reward offered. Far other was their actual

lot. "Thousands of prisoners," said an official representation, "are

going about idle, polluting the atmosphere in which they move. Is it to

be wondered at that the Pentonville men should fall?"[252] The extreme

social degradation and demoralising contamination to which they were

exposed in Van Diemen's Land, and the disheartening difficulties they

had to contend with, were utterly incompatible with the spirit of Lord

Stanley's despatch.[253] This "breach of the public faith" was promptly

repaired by a new series of projects.

Sir Charles Fitz Roy and Sir E. Wilmot, assisted by Mr. Latrobe, were

instructed to select a site whither to send exiles, there to remain

while awaiting hire or voluntary emigration: conditional pardons which

gave liberty in Van Diemen's Land, were made available in all the

colonies.

The formation of a new settlement was the grand expedient. Vessels

bringing convicts to Van Diemen's Land were to convey ticket holders to

North Australia. Happily for the world this project was defeated. A

squatter hired exiles in England, with the sanction of the minister. A

demand for labor sprung up. Sir George Gipps informed the secretary of

state that from Moreton Bay to Melbourne exiles would be welcome. This

Mr. Latrobe confirmed (1845). The settlers associated to bring expirees

from Van Diemen's Land. Many shiploads were deported at £1 per head.

Thus the difficulty appeared at an end. The _Maitland_, engaged for

North Australia, was diverted to Port Phillip. The men were promptly

employed. The considerable flockmasters were desirous of a regular

supply, while the colonists in general were far less cordial. Opposition

was, however, languid; and the occasional apathy of the public and the

indecision of the press were construed as assent.

While the home and colonial governments were constructing and dissolving

systems, the idea of abolition was started by the press. "The settlers,"

said the _Examiner_, "may not be prepared for this. Our own impression

is that they are not; but it is our firm opinion that at no distant day

the unanimous voice of the community will say, in a tone not to be

disregarded, cease transportation for ever." (March, 1844.) Events a few

months after still more forcibly pointed to this issue.

Mr. M'Lachlan, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, put the case of Van

Diemen's Land in a striking aspect. "Shall the fairest isle in the south

be converted into one huge gaol? shall the free inhabitants be made the

passive instruments of punishing these criminals? Is this the only

capacity in which the British government will recognise the free

colonists? The petitioners have laid their case before the legislature.

They trust they have not appealed in vain--that they will not be driven

from a land where the best days of many of them have been spent"

(February, 1846).

The petition prepared by Mr. Pitcairn was presented in the lords by the

Marquis of Lansdowne (March, 1846). In remarking on its contents, Lord

Stanley begged their lordships to believe that the question involved

interests more important than a single colony! He stated that Van

Diemen's Land could not be swamped by an annual influx of four thousand.

If, he said, the thirty thousand persons released from the prisons of

France were so intolerable, what must be the condition of England with

sixty thousand expirees then settled in the colonies? Van Diemen's Land

was always a penal colony, and he saw no reason that it should be

otherwise. Earl Grey warmly censured this policy, and complained "that

no hope of relief from the frightful evils of transportation had been

afforded." He stated that he was "prepared to express an opinion that

transportation should be got rid of. He had long entertained that

opinion, and had never seen the arguments of the Archbishop of Dublin

refuted." A duplicate of this petition, presented to the Commons, was

followed by the motion of Mr. Ewart, "That it is inexpedient to make Van

Diemen's Land the sole receptacle of convicts, and that transportation

be abolished, except as a supplement to penal discipline" (May, 1846).

The day chosen was inauspicious. The "house" was gone to the Epsom

races. Mr. Hudson, the railway king, not better employed, stumbled into

the chapel of St. Stephen, and counted out the members. Mr. Ewart

renewed his motion (July 6). A few days before Earl Grey and Mr. Hawes

had obtained the command of the colonies, they admitted the facts of the

petition, and promised redress. The liberal principles avowed by the new

government reassured the friends of Van Diemen's Land. Mr. Gladstone had

determined to arrest the influx of convicts for two years: this was

approved by his successor. In quashing the North Australian colony, Earl

Grey stated his dissent from the principles on which it had been founded

(September 30, 1846). The whigs ever expressed a decided abhorrence of

penal colonisation and the collection of masses cradled in the

traditions of crime. When taunted with this accumulation in Van Diemen's

Land as the result of his policy of 1840, Lord John Russell

explained:--"As to the sending of convicts to Van Diemen's Land, he had

intended to adopt the policy recommended in the work of the Archbishop

of Dublin. Had his plan been carried out, instead of 4,000 convicts sent

to Van Diemen's Land there would not have been more than five or six

hundred."

When Earl Grey instructed Sir William Denison in reference to certain

reforms, he intimated his expectation that transportation would

terminate. Soon after Sir William Denison addressed to the magistrates

of the territory a series of enquiries (March, 1847), of which the first

was awfully momentous. "Do you consider it desirable that transportation

of convicts to this country should cease altogether?" The character of

the enquiry was described in a letter signed by the private secretary.

The governor preferred communicating with these gentlemen, and by them

with their neighbours, rather than with popular assemblies. It was not,

however, to be expected that a subject of direct and universal concern

would be resigned to the discussion of a single class; nor did persons

holding magisterial distinctions, on that account command the confidence

of the people. This was felt by the magistrates themselves. A

preliminary meeting was convened at Hobart Town to discuss the subject

of the circular. A difference of opinion was apparent, and an angry

altercation ensued. Mr. Carter, a storekeeper, defended transportation

as necessary to trade. Mr. Gregson advised his auditors to cast the

question of crocks and slops to the wind, and to secure at once the

final liberation of the colony. A public meeting was held at Hobart

Town. Ineffectual attempts to postpone the question by the advocates of

transportation were offered, and the speakers on the popular side were

loudly cheered. The party defeated signed a memorial representing that

they were not heard at the meeting, and repudiating its decision. Sir

William Denison promised to place it in the hands of Earl Grey "as a

record to be employed in the support of the facts it contained."

This second petition, adopted by the colony (6th May, 1847), was also

drawn up by Mr. Pitcairn. The editors of the London _Morning Chronicle_

remarked "That they never read a public document more calculated to

command both the convictions and sympathies of those whom it addresses.

Future ages would contemplate with amazement the fact that wrongs so

cruel in their nature, and so enormous in their amount, have been

inflicted in civilized times." It recapitulated the grievances of the

colony with energy and clearness. It complained that promises of relief

had proved fallacious--that the worst evils of transportation were

continued; that there were then four thousand prisoners more in the

colony than were ever at one time in New South Wales, and that 12,000

free persons had quitted the country since 1841. The petition asked for

representative government, the abolition of transportation, and the

importation of 12,000 free immigrants at the expense of Great Britain;

and it recommended the removal of the men to the colony of North

Australia, or wherever they might be required. Meetings were held by

different classes in several districts of the colony. In the most

populous the feeling decidedly favored abolition. Not the least

important of the series were held in Launceston. Six magistrates of the

north determined to advise with the colonists at large. The persons who

assembled at their call were undecided; the friends of abolition desired

delay; its determined opponents deprecated public discussion; but to the

majority deliberation seemed necessary, and on the motion of Mr. Dry a

committee was constituted who were requested to collect evidence, to

make a report, and draft a reply to the circular of the governor.[254]

The tradesmen of that public spirited community first expressed their

sentiments. A few transportationists induced a respectable shopkeeper to

propose thirty-nine reasons for the continuance of transportation, but

the warmth of his elocution and the frequent repetition of "because" in

an Aberdeen accent, dissolved his party in laughter. The good humoured

logician acquiesced in the voice of the assembly and abandoned the cause

of transportation for ever. The meeting convened of the northern

colonists assembled on the 10th of May. The committee appointed on the

3d of April having prepared a report, and founded on its conclusions a

reply to the circular, it was signed by the chairman, James Cox, Esq.,

of Clarendon.[255] Many who were formerly advocates for transportation

as it once existed, saw its dangers when they became anxious for the

moral and social welfare of their sons. They were formerly but

flockmasters, but they had become the founders of a state. They learned

from the discussions of the ministers that what they had thought a

service rendered to the crown was deemed disgraceful and degrading.

Opulent settlers who visited Europe found it convenient to conceal their

home, and some less prudent were repelled with unconquerable

distrust.[256] In a small community the public reputation is of personal

importance, and it was alleged that to neglect the offer of social

freedom would be infamy unexampled. To this feeling the abolitionists

appealed. "Parents of Van Diemen's Land," said the author of a pamphlet

called _Common Sense_, "can you hesitate? Let the timid and sordid

doubt,--let them reckon the farthing they may lose! Let your hearts

dictate your answer to the circular. Let it be worthy Britons,

Christians, and Parents. Shew that you prize your rights, and that you

love your children. That land which they tell you will become a desert

when the clank of chains, the cries of torture, the noise of riot, and

the groans of despair shall be heard no longer, will _not_ become a

desert; 'it will blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing,'

when your sons and daughters shall go forth, the free among the free.

Consult your own understandings, that you may obey the dictates of your

hearts. The Sovereign has invited you to express your desire. Let it not

be one that will cause the eyes of mankind to look upon you with

abhorrence, and turn away with contempt. Make not your name a scorn and

a hissing! Perform your duty, AND SAVE YOUR ADOPTED COUNTRY!"

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 252: Mr. Boyd, August 29, 1845.]

[Footnote 253: Dr. Hampton to the Commissioner of P. P., Aug. '45.]

[Footnote 254: The committee was constituted by the following

gentlemen:--Wm. Archer, J.P., W. H. Browne, L.L.D., James Cox, J.P., R.

Dry. M.L.C., F. M. Innes, Esq., J. G. Jennings, J.P., W. R. Pugh, M.D.,

J.P., H. Reed, J.P., J. Thompson, Esq., and J. A. Youl, J. P.]

[Footnote 255: This document, some extracts of which express the

prevailing opinion, was read by Mr. Dry:--

"The circular addressed by his Excellency to the magistrates of this

territory, has been made the subject of careful deliberation.

To his Excellency's first question--'Do you consider it desirable that

the transportation of convicts to this colony should cease altogether?'

we reply that it is our opinion transportation 'to this country should

cease altogether.'

In connexion with this question we recognise the truth and importance of

his Excellency's caution, that no 'material advantage' ought to 'balance

against any amount of moral evil, however small;' we have therefore

directed our attention to this point as preliminary to a decision on

others less vital.

In examining the moral bearings of transportation, we have enquired--

1. Are there any moral evils occasioned by the transportation of

convicts to the colony?

2. If so, are the moral evils now connected with transportation inherent

and inseparable?

3. Can it be presumed that other, and greater moral evils will accrue to

the colony from the stoppage of transportation?

It appears that the convicts in this colony out-number the children, and

amount to nearly double the adult free population; that since the year

1840, 25,228 prisoners have been transported to Van Diemen's Land and

its dependencies; that one fifth only of these are females; that the

greater proportion of domestic servants as well as laborers are

convicts; that they are in constant contact with every class of colonial

society; and that though not universally, they are generally persons of

bad principles and vicious habits.

The numerical preponderance of prisoners has lowered the general tone of

society, encouraged fraud, obstructed the administration of justice, and

so far multiplied crime as to discourage its prosecution;

notwithstanding 521 persons were _tried_ before the Supreme Court and

Quarter Sessions, last year.

The second enquiry is,--are the evils in connection with transportation

inherent and inseparable?

Looking at the present condition of this island, it may be justly

concluded that they are.

Reason and experience justify the conclusion that the aggregation of

prisoners whether in close bondage or in society, must confirm them in

evil. The effect of transportation is to force the free working classes

from the island, and to supply their place with prisoners. It appears,

therefore, demonstrable that as far as they are the instruments of

demoralization, it is inevitable, from their numerical preponderance.

Their condition affords no prospect of extensive reformation, and

whatever evils they may be supposed to create, are essential

consequences of transportation.

3. 'Whether greater evils may not arise from the shock to society, which

the sudden cessation of a supply of labour may cause?'

It is not perceived in what manner the want of labour can be productive

of greater _moral_ evils than now exist. An increase of wages must be so

far beneficial to the employed, and increase their means of comfort. It

is not supposed that a deficiency of labour will increase the

_immorality of the upper classes_; and no connexion can be discovered

between cessation and an increase of evil in any form whatever. On the

contrary, transportation, by raising the proportion of the aged, the

feeble, and the incapable, would seem to lead to the apprehension that

greater immorality may result as the growing effect of want and

distress. Even were it true, that the more wealthy classes are safe from

contamination could a moral cordon be drawn--even could they be held

safe from the effects of unrestricted communication with men of the same

language, color, and nation--still there appears no propriety in leaving

the working classes generally out of account. Many were induced to

settle in this country by representations for which the government is

morally responsible. As subjects of the Queen, they are entitled to be

guarded against any measures which may destroy their social position and

domestic security; it would be difficult to justify the sacrifice of

their welfare for the sake of a class--numerically much smaller--however

rich.

And, in looking at the circumstances of this colony, no causes have been

discovered for inferring its decline, _excepting only such as are the

effects of transportation_."

The reply to the first query, "that transportation ought to cease at

once and for ever," elicited applause that lasted some minutes.]

[Footnote 256: In our native land we are looked upon with feelings of

horror. An old and respected colonist, and a most intimate friend of his

own, had gone home, and had lately returned. He had told him some

stories, and he would vouch for the truth of them. When he arrived at

home he took his family to an hotel. He had not been there long before

the landlord learnt that he had come from this place: he came to him

with a face full of concern, and said, "You did not tell me, sir, that

you came from Van Diemen's Land; do not let it be known, or I shall be

ruined." On another occasion a friend of his had to assure the landlord

that he was a perfectly honest man, and he need not be afraid of him,

although he did come from Van Diemen's Land. A short time after he had

been in England he engaged a butler. He had not been long in the family

before he came and said the place did not suit him, and he left at once.

The servants whom he had taken from this place soon found out the

feeling that existed; and, instead of saying they came from here, they

used to say they came from India.--_Speech of Robert Officer, M. D., at

Hobart Town Meeting._]

SECTION III.

The benefit derived from Mr. M'Lachlan's efforts was apparent to all.

But he was returning to Van Diemen's Land. The New South Wales

legislature engaged the Honourable F. Scott, M.P., to watch over their

concerns. To this Lord Stanley demurred. He said a retainer for a colony

was inconsistent with the standing obligations of a member of

parliament, and that a committee to direct him would usurp the functions

of the executive (1845). The old American colonies appointed agents:

sometimes acting for only one branch of the legislature where there were

two chambers. They were often members of parliament. Edmund Burke filled

this office for the assembly of New York, with a salary of £500. The

people of Van Diemen's Land formed "The London Agency Association," and

appointed Mr. J. A. Jackson to represent them. Their proceedings were

adopted by the colony, at a meeting called by the sheriff of Hobart

Town; they did not however pretend to public authority, and they

confined their attention to secular questions. The subscribers were

called together at this crisis. By a vote, almost unanimous, they

adopted a letter of instructions which directed Mr. Jackson to support

the cause of total abolition. The London Agency Association expressed

the opinions of the country gentlemen. There were several other

organisations composed chiefly of tradesmen. In reference, however, to

representation and abolition, all classes agreed.

The British Government seemed to anticipate the wishes of the colonists.

A despatch (February 5, 1847,) from Earl Grey, printed in the blue book,

informed the people that transportation to Van Diemen's Land, except,

indeed, as a part of the colonial empire, was finally terminated. There

was nothing to prevent the arrival of exiles, when the state of the

colony could admit of their dispersion amidst a free people,--a

condition explicitly required by the primary object of cessation. This

despatch Sir William Denison laid on the table of the council, and while

he noticed its harmony with the wishes of a large proportion of the free

inhabitants, he exhorted them to beware of undue exultation or

despondency whatever the issue of the measure, and in this crisis of

their fate to confide in the goodness of God (July, 1847).

The views of the government were expounded in official letters and

speeches in the British legislature. Stated with brevity they expressed

a purpose to punish crime in England, and to assist the emigration to

every British colony, individually rather than collectively, of men with

conditional pardons. Sir George Grey asserted that the idea of resuming

transportation to Van Diemen's Land was illusory. He recommended that

the governor should be instantly informed of its termination. He

condemned the practice of sending many exiles to one place as likely to

create a feeling of caste, and in time produce the evils of penal

colonisation. With these views Earl Grey concurred (February 5, 1847).

He stated that they agreed with his established opinion, and he thought

that well trained convicts might be dispersed in the colonies,

especially taking care to promote the emigration of a considerable

number of persons untainted with crime. To the same effect was his

exposition of the future policy in the House of Lords. He expressed a

hope that exiles might be so distributed that the chance of recognition

should be slight. Lord Brougham made merry at this notion of banishment

as a game at which two could play, and depicted the consternation of

Calais at an arrival of reformed Pentonvillians. The chief reliance of

Earl Grey was on the demand for convict labor in the colonies, which he

far too highly estimated. When the intentions of the home government

were declared, Sir W. Denison, who had given opposite advice, hastened

to recall his recommendation. He stated that to resume transportation in

any shape would be looked upon as a breach of faith, and be very

embarrassing to government (August 28, 1847).

The publication of Earl Grey's policy occasioned general gladness and

gratitude. But it was followed by a measure adverse to its whole spirit

and the facts on which it had been founded (September, 1847). The

governor was directed to remove the convicts at Norfolk Island to Van

Diemen's Land, and to receive those remaining in New South Wales not

entitled to release. Drafts of transports were constantly arriving from

every British dependency, and thus additions were daily made to the

overwhelming convict population. The vices of the Norfolk Island

prisoners had appalled the empire. The residuary convicts of New South

Wales indicated their character by their long detention. Some were

imprisoned in caverns dug in the rocks, and their depravity assumed the

aspect of mania. The whole colony was roused by these projects. Meetings

and memorials were multiplied. A deputation to the governor, then in

Launceston, was attended by a long and excited procession. He concurred

in their sentiments, suspended the progress of the scheme, and received

the thanks of the colonists and the minister. The result was

unimportant, for from Norfolk Island the convicts were silently

transmitted to Van Diemen's Land and distributed undistinguished.

Mr. Gladstone, when secretary for the colonies, addressed a confidential

despatch to Sir C. Fitz Roy (April, 1846), and left its publication to

his discretion. It proposed to renew transportation to New South Wales

with the assent of the colonial legislature. This proposal was submitted

to a committee of the council. A report was founded on the evidence of

employers and forwarded to Earl Grey. It consented, conditionally; that

two free persons should be sent at the expense of England for every

prisoner, and that assignment should be revived. It admitted that the

real welfare of the colony might be best promoted by the total stoppage

of transportation to Australasia; and it yielded to a regulated and

compensating scheme only as the alternative of indirect transportation.

To give effect to the report, of which the adjournment of the

legislative council prevented the consideration, Mr. Darvall and five

hundred others presented a petition to the crown, which Earl Grey, "laid

at the foot of the throne." Earl Grey refused to restore assignment or

to send two free persons for one in bonds; but he offered to send an

equal number of each at the cost of the British treasury (September 3,

1847). After an earnest but limited opposition the proposal was accepted

by the legislative council, and the vast territory of New South Wales

opened to the dispersion of 5,000 prisoners per annum.

But Earl Grey himself departed from his own proposals (September, 1848).

He alleged that the exchequer would not permit the execution of the

emigration scheme, and that the demand for labour in the other British

colonies to the full extent of the supply rendered the outlay

unnecessary. Yet to satisfy the petitioners for convicts, some ships

would be sent. But should the legislature insist, emigrants in equal

numbers would follow them, and transportation terminate.

The adoption of this course was prompted by financial considerations,

but especially by the offer of Sir William Denison to receive 4,000

convicts annually, and thus to disperse them over the continent. This

offer had been cancelled in another despatch, but of this, although

before him, Earl Grey took no notice. He described with great apparent

elation, the character of reformed prisoners, and quoted a chaplain as

his authority, who represented them in the most favorable light. They

cheerfully endured exposure on the public works, to deter their fellow

countrymen from crime, and overcame all their adversities by patience

and prayer. To a variety of notions, all absurd and impracticable, and

all speedily abandoned, he added, "Her Majesty's government accordingly

propose in future, with regard to all convicts, except those whose

health may require different treatment, or whose sentences have been

commuted for imprisonment, that, after having gone through the two first

stages of punishment already adverted to, they should be removed as

holders of tickets-of-leave to Van Diemen's Land" (April 27, 1848).

Mr. Jackson obtained an interview with Earl Grey (Oct., 1848), and

pointed out the injustice of this course. His lordship lamented the

revival of transportation to Van Diemen's Land, and said that it arose

from unavoidable circumstances. He declared his adherence to the plan of

dispersion, and his belief that South Africa, Port Phillip, and other

colonies would afford an ample outlet for the prisoners. Circulars were

accordingly sent to the Cape of Good Hope, the Mauritius, New Zealand,

New South Wales, and Swan River. The Swan River colonists, a few

hundreds in all, accepted the offer. South Australia refused. In New

Zealand the people of both colors deprecated the plan. "Send us

gentlemen," said the chiefs, "but send us no convicts."

Before replies could arrive, Earl Grey resolved to attempt its

execution. He began with the Cape of Good Hope: he thought that the

military outlay for its defence entitled the crown to invade it with

convicts. The _Neptune_, with ticket-holders from Ireland, anchored in

Simon's Bay: the inhabitants besought Sir Harry Smith to send her back.

This he refused; but he expressed his entire sympathy with their

opinions, and forwarded a despatch to that effect. He promised that not

one should land without new orders from the secretary of state. The

people, unwilling to depend on the justice of Earl Grey, formed a

confederacy. They refused to hold intercourse with the government, or

while the vessel remained on their coast to supply the commissariat, or

to deal with any who violated this compact. Branch associations sprung

up in every district: passes were issued to travellers to show they had

not strayed from the _Neptune_. Every public body, civil and religious,

sanctioned the resistance. The cause of the Cape was espoused by the

British press. A motion was made in the Commons, by Mr. Adderley,

amounting to a censure on the minister. Both Lord John Russell and Earl

Grey promised to remove the grievance, and the _Neptune_ was ordered to

sail for Van Diemen's Land (November 3, 1849). The inhabitants gave

money to be distributed to the prisoners at their destination (February,

1850). This done, they joined in illuminations, public thanksgivings,

and congratulatory addresses to the governor, who reproved their zeal,

but rejoiced at their success. A prosecution of Mr. Fairbairn, for

conspiracy to compel an unlawful act, was begun, but fell to the ground.

A settler who supplied the government was honored with knighthood: an

example was offered to the empire of passive but victorious resistance.

The despatch of Earl Grey repudiating his own stipulation excited the

rage of New South Wales. Mr. Charles Cowper carried resolutions

rejecting transportation in any form whatever through the legislative

council without opposition. On the arrival of the _Hashemy_, a convict

vessel, the inhabitants of Sydney to the number of some thousands

assembled (June 11, 1849), and by a deputation to Sir Charles Fitz Roy,

demanded that the prisoners should be sent away, if necessary at the

colonial cost. Sir Charles was alarmed and increased his guards; he

refused admittance to the deputation, and represented their constituents

as a factious and feeble minority. The _Randolph_ on a similar errand

entered Port Phillip; the people resolved to oppose the landing. They

applied to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, then on a visit to their district, to

prevent their invasion. They were sustained by the forcible remonstrance

of Mr. Latrobe, and the vessel was sent to another part of the

territory.

No single cause will fully account for the intense and universal

opposition to the plans of Earl Grey. The vacillation of his lordship in

reference to the emigrant clause, produced feelings of exasperation and

distrust, but the sad experience of Van Diemen's Land was accepted as a

warning by other portions of the empire. A pamphlet, recording the

proceedings of the Tasmanian colonists, was everywhere scattered. It

minutely examined the penal policy of the crown, and recorded the

various demonstrations against convictism (June, 1847). A large package

of this pamphlet was forwarded by the Launceston Association to the Cape

of Good Hope, and arrived a few weeks before the _Neptune_. Thus foreign

fuel was added to the local fire--the testimony of men who had

practically known the system, and by whom it was abhorred. The committee

appointed by the Lords (1847), by the witnesses they examined,

authenticated the evidence against it. The fate of Van Diemen's Land did

not command peculiar interest amidst the wreck of thrones and the

overthrow of empires; but the supposed connection between the criminals

and insurgents of France alarmed the aristocracy, and disposed them to

cling to transportation. The Bishop of Tasmania bore testimony to its

colonial mischief. Lord Brougham endeavored to draw admissions favorable

to his views with professional acuteness; but he was foiled, and the

bishop pronounced the solemn warning that those who cast a prisoner,

especially a woman, into a community where criminal principles prevail,

pronounce a sentence for both worlds.

The Tasmanian colonists were soon instructed by the press that the

theory of dispersion was exploded. They were astonished to find fresh

convict vessels hovering on their shores; but more still were they

amazed to learn that Earl Grey seriously professed that by sending all

the convicts to Van Diemen's Land he substantially realised dispersion.

He indeed promised to provide an equal amount of emigration, but they

knew that these projects were illusive. They had before them the

addition of convict ticket holders, by hundreds, to thousands and tens

of thousands already in the colony; there to struggle with their

predecessors for bread. Such was the prospect of 1848.

SECTION IV.

"I hope," said Lord John Russell, "that when the house does come

seriously to consider any bill having the question of transportation

directly in view, it will consider the benefit of the colonies as well

as of the mother country. I own I think it has been too much the custom

both to pass acts imposing the penalty of transportation with a view

rather to the convenience of this country than to the reformation of

persons known to be of vicious habits, or to the interest of the

colonies to which they were sent. We are bound to consider those

interests likewise. We are bound when we are planting provinces, perhaps

what may in future time be empires, to endeavour that they should not be

merely seats of malefactors and of convicts, but communities fitted to

set an example of virtue and happiness, and not to make plantations, as

Lord Bacon says, of the scum of the land" (June, 1847). Such were the

sentiments of the prime minister on penal colonisation. The secretary of

the home department and the secretary for the colonies had been equally

explicit. Could they really believe their own doctrine, when their

practice was exactly opposite to its plainest dictates?

The revolution in the policy of the crown everywhere excited

astonishment and indignation. The minister, who denounced penal

colonisation as a national crime--who had pleaded the cause of the

colony and pledged the redress of its grievances--who, in short, had

professed himself a disciple of Archbishop Whately--continued to pour

convicts by thousands where for every free man there were two in bond.

Destitute of legislative and physical power, the colonists could do

nothing but deprecate. Every principal town and public body renewed

their entreaties. To give them in full would be but to repeat statements

of similar import. However variously expressed, they could scarcely

deepen the unavoidable convictions of the world.

In their numerous petitions the colonists referred to the public joy

which had greeted an offer of abolition,--accepted not less as a signal

interference of providence than as a proof of the equity of the British

government. They slightly censured Sir William Denison who had called

for four thousand convicts annually, against the petitions of 5,320

colonists, 624 parents and guardians, representing 3,355 souls; against

the memorials of the clergy of every sect, the oldest magistrates, and

most opulent settlers, and public meetings everywhere decisive, and

they entreated deliverance from an experiment more hopeless than its

predecessors. They reminded the government of Great Britain that the

colony was now entitled to abolition, not only as a measure politic in

itself, but as guaranteed by the deliberate and solemn promise of the

minister, promulgated by the representative of the crown.

A massive volume would be insufficient to contain the petitions,

letters, and despatches produced in this controversy. Colonists well

qualified to maintain the popular cause devoted to this question the

best years of life.

Sir William Denison, although opposed to one form of transportation,

maintained its substance with a pertinacity which never wavered. He

stood almost alone. He adopted the opinion that the supply of labor to

the colonies of this hemisphere was within the special province of his

government. The tendency of high wages to demoralise the workman and

retard the prosperity of employers, are prominent topics in all his

discourses and writings. Thus the masses of the people inferred that his

schemes were hostile to their welfare, and that the depression of the

working classes was a primary object of his policy. The opulent settlers

had abandoned these considerations under the influence of higher aims.

They were resolved to trust to the experience of other colonies

where--with a demand for labor--a rapid enlargement of capital and

diminished crime seemed to prove that the moral and material interests

of the wealthy and industrial classes were not incompatible. The social

recovery of the colony could only be effected by the influx of families,

and a comfortable subsistence was indispensable to attract them. The

arguments of the governor, addressed to momentary interests, were

overpowered by a desire to stand on a level with free peoples. The

disputants on both sides were in possession of facts favorable to their

respective opinions. Whatever evils were proved against transportation,

the labor it afforded had been long employed. Habit had reconciled the

minds of many to its inferiority; and the means of supplying its place

were confessedly contingent and remote. A new society, having no

disabilities to remove, no moral stain to obliterate, and formed of

elements in natural proportion, could not hesitate a moment. Economical

experience would dictate the rejection of slaves. But to clear away the

refuse of a long-existing social state, and to build anew, was a

formidable undertaking, however certain of reward. Many landholders and

masters foresaw the trials attending the transition, but were willing to

encounter them to attain an object beyond all price. "We wish it," said

one of their manifestos, "to go forth to England, and to England's

Queen, that we are not expecting solicitation or waiting for bribes; but

knowing what we do, and prizing as man must ever prize the sources of

gain, our resolution is taken,--relying on the sympathy of mankind, we

cast ourselves on the goodness of Almighty God, and dare all hazards,

_that our children may be virtuous, and their country free_."

The expression of colonial feeling was accepted by most respectable

dissentients as decisive. The settlers least averse to transportation

were disgusted with the ever-changing views of the ministers. In the

preceding ten years they had never known an hour's repose. In '38, the

parliamentary committee condemned assignment. In '40, Lord John Russell

stopped transportation. In '41, Captain Maconochie's mark system was in

the ascendant. In '42, Lord Stanley's probation scheme sprang up. In

'45, Mr. Gladstone projected the North Australian colony for

ticket-holders. In '46, Earl Grey propounded the Tasmanian convict

village scheme. In '47, he announced total abolition. In '48, another

complete revolution took place, and all convicts were to be sent to Van

Diemen's Land. This extravagance of upstart theory and fitful experiment

without end, all tended to check colonial enterprise and destroy the

public tranquillity.

In whatever sense Earl Grey announced abolition in '47, it was clear

that free emigration was essential to his plan when he proposed to

resume it in '48. The funds he assigned for this purpose were sums,--the

cost of their exile--to be exacted from ticket-holders as the price of

freedom. But these funds were wholly prospective. Insuperable

difficulties opposed their collection. Nor was the principle just. The

sickly and unskilful would have stood at a greater distance from

liberation than the clever and robust. The successful thief could

purchase his freedom, and leave behind his more honest shipmates. The

criminal being confounded with the debtor, a penal sentence would have

ended in a civil process. Earl Grey proposed to add to the free

population by the expenditure of £10,000, granted by the parliament, but

it was found that the families of convicts were to be the chief

participants. Thus resumption cut off all hope of free emigration. Nor

was it even desirable while the laboring classes were in poverty. The

settlers had the example of New South Wales before them; where even the

sudden stoppage of transportation had been followed by rapid recovery.

They were willing to combat their difficulties alone. "Such," said they,

"will at no distant period be the condition of this country should the

government prove just. And then, with its fertile valleys, clothed with

abundance and filled with life, and its pure salubrious atmosphere

giving length of days, it will need no other attractions than nature has

conferred--no other commerce than the commerce of freedom--no patronage

save the enterprise of its children. From the crown we ask nothing

except to spare us from further wrong, and to accept our grateful

loyalty in return for the uplifting of a burden too heavy to bear."

The governor himself was adverse to the ticket system. The control

exercised over the holders was limited to the most ineffectual and

distant surveillance. They were free in reference to the colonists, and

were subject to the same laws for the regulation of service.

Restrictions were imposed on their locomotion, but without much

practical restraint. Sir William Denison now recommended to the

secretary of state to send all convicts to New South Wales, where wages

were high and labor scarce, until the colonies being equal, the market

of Van Diemen's Land might again share in absorbing them. To this plan

the colony would have been disposed to assent at this stage of the

struggle. By most persons it was thought reasonable, on national

grounds, that the theory of dispersion should be tried, wherever it

might inflict no peculiar caste or moral stain. Mr. Sharland, a

strenuous abolitionist, prepared a series of resolutions against the new

form of convictism. The governor promised to support them in the nominee

council, and they passed unanimously (October, 1848). The first totally

objected to the ticket system, as in the highest degree injurious to the

convicts and the colony, and without advantage to Great Britain. The

second recommended the dispersion of convicts throughout the colonies,

accompanied by well-selected emigrants. The commentary of the governor

explained these resolutions as a compromise between persons of adverse

views. A large number of non-official magistrates--117 out of

140--signed the condemnatory clause only. They declined to countenance

the revival of transportation, or, by discussing theories of secondary

punishment, to weaken the moral claim held in the pledge of Earl Grey.

The increasing numbers of ticket-holders confirmed these objections.

They were landed, and forwarded in considerable bodies to seek

employment in the interior. Their decent apparel and quiet demeanour

made them less objects of aversion than pity. Unacquainted with colonial

labor, they were often unable to procure employment. Amongst men of this

class many, of course, were disorderly and reckless, and when they were

not readily relieved, they were insolent and threatening. They could,

indeed, throw up their tickets, and claim food of the government, but

only by a process which exposed them to censure and punishment.

"Unfortunate men," said the London Agency Association, "unacquainted

with useful labor, wander from farm to farm, asking for a night's

shelter or a morsel of bread. The relief of these men by the settlers is

prompted alike by their humanity and their fears."[257] These statements

were disputed by the governor, but they were sustained by numerous

certificates, and, in a form more qualified, by several police

magistrates. In a lonely locality females could hardly refuse relief to

applicants in parties, who pleaded the utmost want, and, when travelling

over districts equal to an English county, depended on the charity of

the settlers.

These appeals were laid before parliament; they rested their claims on

the word and honor of the minister, and on the unaltered circumstances

which he quoted to justify his original design of abolition. The pledge

was confirmed by the long acquiescence of Earl Grey and the other

ministers of the crown. Lord Mahon, a member of the late ministry,

complained that Earl Grey had fettered not only himself but his

successors. He confirmed the colonial interpretation of the pledge,

"most imprudently given by Earl Grey, that transportation should not be

resumed to Van Diemen's Land;" and he expressed an opinion "that it was

most impolitic and perilous thus to make pledges to the colonists that

were not fulfilled."[258]

During the same session Mr. Gladstone repeatedly referred to the purport

of this abolition despatch, and urged the minister to extend as widely

as possible the area of penal dispersion. He thought the policy of

England less wise than in former times, when the numbers distributed in

America were so small that they were lost in the mass of the population

(March, '49). Lord John Russell, he observed, had given a pledge that

transportation to New South Wales should be stopped. The same promise

was made to Van Diemen's Land. Had these pledges been kept? Such

vacillation was discreditable to the name of this great country (June,

'49).

Earl Grey was still pressed by the reiterated appeals of Van Diemen's

Land, and by imputations of having broken faith with its inhabitants.

The complaints of eminent commoners were renewed in the lords. He was

reminded that his opinions in 1846 were at variance with continued

transportation. Earl Grey demanded proof, when Lord Lyttleton held up

his despatch, and referred to an opinion but a few days before avowed by

Lord John Russell, that the time was at hand when a substitute would be

necessary for transportation. Lords Wodehouse and Ilchester followed,

and predicted a fearful recoil,--a severe and well merited retribution.

Lord Stanley reflected on the secretary of state for abandoning the

remedial plans of his predecessor. "Expectations," he said, "had been

held out to Van Diemen's Land, that transportation would cease, but that

now it appeared that it was not to cease. What security had the noble

lord that the colony would not resist the reception of convicts?" Lord

Monteagle asked if it was possible to send them to Van Diemen's Land? To

this Earl Grey replied that the colony was thriving, that the opposition

to transportation had declined. Millions had been expended in preparing

the country for convicts, and the free inhabitants could not expect that

when they chose to call for cessation, the imperial policy was to be

altered on their demand (April 12, 1850).

"I must notice," said Earl Grey, "the remarks of the noble lord at the

table (Lord Lyttleton) and the noble lord opposite, (Lord Stanley) as to

the effect of the earlier measures of the present administration in

producing the difficulty which is now complained of. It is asserted that

the language used both in despatches and in discussions in parliament by

members of her Majesty's government was calculated to create an

impression on the minds of the colonists, that transportation was to be

entirely discontinued, and thus to raise expectation, which it is

painful now to disappoint. My lords, if that impression and these

expectations were created, it was rather by what other parties

represented to be the views and intentions of the government, than by

anything which was said by members of the administration. I defy any

person to read through the despatches upon this subject as a whole (for

perhaps detached passages taken without the contents might be quoted

which would convey a different meaning), and not to perceive that the

view entertained from first to last was, that convicts, after having

undergone the most severe part of their punishment, were to be removed

to the Australian colonies, and a very large portion of them to Van

Diemen's Land. Undoubtedly it was the original intention of her

Majesty's government that convicts should be removed as exiles; that is,

under regulations by which on their arrival they would have been

entirely free except as to the power of returning to this country." When

his lordship was again taunted with the violation of his promise, he

replied that Van Diemen's Land had no right to complain--colonies which

had been founded as free colonies might do so; "but Van Diemen's Land

had been originally intended as a penal settlement, and had no right to

refuse to receive any number of prisoners the government choose to send,

and that he (Earl Grey) was of opinion that the authority of the crown

should be firmly asserted."

Thus the hope of voluntary relief from Earl Grey was totally

extinguished. He had before acknowledged that the claims of the colony

were unsatisfied, and had given no distinct denial of the pledge; but

his tone under these rebukes was authoritative and menacing. Passing

over all he had ever said in favor of dispersion, he adopted the

sentiments, almost the words of Lord Stanley, delivered four years

before, when that nobleman defended the policy of transportation and

denied the right of the colonists of Tasmania to complain.

The people of Van Diemen's Land, on receiving this speech, met in

unusual numbers, and renewed their protests and petitions. They extended

the leagues, started a year before, by Mr. Young, a Launceston mechanic,

to discountenance the employment of convicts. These compacts contained

various conditions, but they all proceeded on the presumption that

petitions must be followed by action. They were, however, difficult to

observe. It was not easy to distinguish the different orders of convicts

and periods of arrival. The working-classes, to whom the confederation

was beneficial, taunted employers with inconsistency when they shrank

from the unequal sacrifice. The governor himself described the opponents

of transportation, who employed convicts, in terms of irony, and the

press took up the reproach, and weekly reiterated the charge of "paltry

trimming between principle and expediency." By many hundreds the pledge

was signed notwithstanding, and it was generally kept. Many tradesmen

exhibited an example of self-denial and voluntary sacrifice to gain a

public object worthy of praise.[259]

When the _Neptune_, rejected by the Cape, arrived in the Derwent, except

Mr. Mitchell, who was detained in bondage, the passengers were pardoned

(1850). The painful exhibition of ministerial contempt stung more than

it injured the people of Tasmania, and they declared that nothing but

want of power prevented them from chasing the vessel from their waters.

A solemn protest, addressed to the people of Great Britain, was signed

by the chief merchants and landholders.[260] From this time the

colonists continued to protest specially against the violation of public

faith whenever a convict vessel anchored on their shores. Scarcely any

form of remonstrance remained to be tried. For three years the colonists

had repeated their petitions. The collecting of signatures in a

scattered population was attended with much difficulty and expense. To

stimulate and sustain hope through so long a struggle was the great task

of the leaders of this movement. The parents--the women of Van Diemen's

Land--the clergy, singly--all sects together and in their separate

churches, kept up by petitions a constant fire. Such a topic could

hardly be expected to fix the attention of the people of England, but it

derived fresh importance from its complication with the fate of other

colonies and the honor of Great Britain.

The discussion of transportation for several years annoyed and

distressed respectable expirees, who, unless intelligent and just, were

disposed to murmur at arguments which seemed to glance at themselves.

The caution and discrimination of the leaders of the movement could not

always restrain the oratory of their friends, and many offensive

metaphors or epithets dropped in the warmth of speaking, not in the

circumstances to be justified. Stimulated by newspaper writers, certain

educated emancipists of the metropolis proposed to form a "protection

association" (October, 1850). In their manifesto they collected all the

epithets calculated to wound the feelings of "their people," for so they

called them, and drew out columns of "grievances"--in the mock

sentimental style of pseudo martyrdom. "Such," said they, "is our truly

melancholy condition: but the time has arrived to rescue our people."

"We know the silent grandeur of our strength." They proposed to put down

the abolition press, to send emancipists to the Council, and to assert

the majesty of their numbers against their emigrant oppressors. But,

though encouraged by some old transportationists amongst the

magistrates, and by the government press, the scheme was too monstrous

for success. The respectable expirees stood aloof, and even detested an

organisation founded on the reminiscences of crime. A few noisy meetings

and inflammatory speeches were sufficient to open the eyes of most to

the gulf of caste into which their own protectors intended to fling

them. The deputations to the country districts were met in some

instances coldly, and in others with laughter. Mr. Gregson went to the

assembly at Richmond, and crushed their project by a calm exposition of

its character. From this moment the Union languished, and soon

disappeared, leaving a memorable warning against penal colonization and

the creation of a caste embittered by ignorance and revenge.

It was, however, felt by the colonists that no expression of the public

will would recall the minister to a sense of justice, or command the

effectual protection of parliament. The measures adopted by the Cape

were impracticable in Van Diemen's Land: if, indeed, consistent with

loyalty, they were not proper in a country where the support of the law

was necessary to restrain the convict population. Such a course was

predicted and recommended by the English press, but the ministers,

better informed, felt no danger of active or passive resistance.

Whatever compassion might be felt for Van Diemen's Land in the adjacent

colonies, hitherto its treatment by the minister had produced no

demonstration in its favor. It had been held up as a warning to

stimulate resistance to any participation in its fate. The continental

press pointed to its prostration with epithets of reproach, and it was

described as the dust-hole of the empire. The sympathy of its neighbors

was overpowered by the stronger feeling of self-preservation. It seemed

like a mill-stone strung to the neck of the Australian world, and

destined to drag it down to perdition. Under this impression they sought

to impose restrictions on the migration of expirees and the holders of

conditional pardons. The legislature of New South Wales passed a vagrant

act, which required such persons to register their names at the nearest

police-office, within a given time after their arrival. Earl Grey

disallowed this ordinance, at the recommendation of Sir William Denison,

as not only in itself oppressive, but calculated to retard dispersion,

and counteract the royal prerogative. The great argument of the

advocates for transportation in New South Wales was, however, founded on

the impossibility of checking indirect transportation through Van

Diemen's Land. Men landed in Tasmania, crossed over to Port Phillip, and

were often traced by their depredations.

The sense of impotence is not the least painful element of unjust

suffering. This weakness was the topic of exulting scorn with the few

enemies of the popular cause. The people were without allies or

protectors, and completely subject to a despotic will.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 257: London Agency Letter, November, 1848.]

[Footnote 258: Debate, March 8, 1849. (Hansard.)]

[Footnote 259: Among the many devices to awaken attention to ministerial

injustice was an association to obtain for liberated convicts, of the

incorrigible class, a passage to England. The prospectus, signed by Drs.

Browne and Gaunt, turned back the British arguments for transportation

with effect, and proposed to remit the objects of their charity to the

reform societies, parishes, and municipalities of England. This proposal

was seriously discussed at Port Phillip, and nothing prevented its

partial execution but the difficulty of preserving, with the ordinary

arrangements of a vessel, the subordination of such a ship's company.]

[Footnote 260:

"_The solemn Declaration of the undersigned Colonists of Van Diemen's

Land, addressed to the British nation._

"On the 5th day of April, 1850, the ship _Neptune_, the vessel freighted

with convicts to the Cape of Good Hope, but rejected by its inhabitants,

anchored in the port of Hobart Town, under the orders of the right

honorable the secretary of state, Earl Grey.

"Our reiterated petitions presented to her Majesty's government have

impressed the feelings of every class upon the subject of

transportation, and exhausted every argument which could enforce its

abolition.

"The ministers of religion, the parents of 20,000 children, the

magistrates almost unanimously, have in every form expostulated and

implored; nothing that the constitution authorises remains to be done to

make known the most unhappy and oppressed condition of this country....

"We cannot resist the oppression of the British government. We are

convinced that appeals to the justice and humanity of the ministry are

utterly unavailing; and that the principles which have induced them to

relieve armed or rebellious colonies, lead to the oppression or

contemptuous disregard of those who are too feeble for effectual

resistance.

"We have patiently awaited redress; we have borne illegal taxes, imposed

by a council of crown nominees, and maintained by the amoval of _one_

judge and the appointment of another; and have appealed only to the

provisions of the constitutional law of England--but in vain.

"And now, to fill up the measure of our wrong, ministers have publicly

announced their contempt for our petitions, by ordering the _Neptune_ to

our port, and discharging her passengers upon our shores.

"In such circumstances silence would be criminal. As citizens and

parents we hereby solemnly protest against the cruelty and falsehood of

the English government--against the wrongs which threaten and oppress

ourselves and our children.

"Van Diemen's Land, April, 1850."]

SECTION V.

But the day of deliverance was at hand. "_The Australias are one_"

became the watch-word of the abolitionists, and they adopted decisive

means to propagate the cry, and secure the co-operation of the colonies

of the continent. From this idea sprang the "Australasian League"--an

organization comprehending a numerical and moral force without parallel

in the present colonial empire. At Launceston, on the 9th of August,

1850, the following resolution was adopted:--"That the whole of the

Australasian Colonies are deeply interested in preventing the

continuance of Transportation to this Island. That the Launceston

Association for Promoting the cessation of Transportation to Van

Diemen's Land be hereby requested to address a letter to the respective

Colonial Secretaries, Speakers of Legislative bodies, Municipal

authorities, and other influential parties in those Colonies, earnestly

requesting the co-operation to ensure their attainment of the great

object we have in view."