SECTION I.

George Arthur, Esq., fourth Lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen’s Land, arrived in the Adrian, on the 12th May, 1824. Formerly superintendent of Honduras, he was extensively known as an officer of inflexible and energetic disposition: his administration had occasioned considerable debate, and was the subject of parliamentary and judicial enquiries. Honduras, an establishment on the American coast, was occupied by adventurers from Jamaica. At first interlopers, their presence was for a time unnoticed by the Spanish crown. A hundred years were passed in unavailing protests and opposition, when the court of Spain reluctantly recognised the location of the cutters of logwood within its undoubted territory.

In 1814, Arthur was appointed superintendent by the Duke of Manchester; at the same time he received from General Fuller the government of the troops in the following words: “I do hereby constitute and appoint you, the said George Arthur, to command such of his Majesty’s subjects as are now armed, or may hereafter arm for the defence of the settlers at the Bay of Honduras; you are, therefore, as commandant, to take upon you the care and charge accordingly.” In virtue of these appointments he claimed both the military and civil command, until he quitted the settlement in 1822.

In 1820, Bradley, an officer stationed at Honduras, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel on full pay, and knowing that the regiment of which Arthur was colonel (the York Chasseurs) was disbanded, he considered himself entitled to the military command, by the seniority of rank, according to the rules of military service: he refused to acknowledge longer the authority of Arthur, or to attend a council of officers to which he was summoned. Arthur instantly caused Bradley to be arrested, and his sword taken from him; and he was detained a prisoner for seventy-three days.

An account of this transaction was transmitted to Jamaica, when General Fuller, the superior officer, ordered the colonel’s liberation; but forwarded to the authorities in Great Britain a statement of the dispute. The conduct of Colonel Bradley was deemed inconsistent with military subordination: he was dismissed from the service without trial; he was, however, allowed to dispose of his commission.

Colonel Bradley instituted an action against Arthur for false imprisonment: his counsel was the present Lord Brougham: Arthur was defended by the law officers of the crown. There were two questions to decide: whether the arrest was legal, and then whether unnecessary hardship had been endured by the plaintiff. The jury, considering that Bradley’s detention was unnecessarily prolonged, gave him damages to the amount of L100. The appointment of Arthur to the government of this country withdrew him from the effect of a legal process, and when Bradley appealed against what he deemed the injustice of his evasion, he was told that he could await his recall. Colonel Bradley next published a statement, that General Fuller had antedated Arthur’s commission as commandant, thus to justify the measures he had taken: a charge amounting to forgery. A criminal information was filed against Bradley: he was found guilty, but was not brought up for judgment.

It was decided by the judges that Bradley was mistaken, and that Arthur’s title to command was regular and valid. Bradley, however, continued to maintain that he was the victim of a deep conspiracy, by which Arthur was rescued from the consequences of usurpation. It is certain that Bradley was ruined.

The judges, in pronouncing a decision on Bradley’s appeal against the verdict of justification which Arthur obtained, in reference to the arrest, set aside the rules and regulations of the service. Their judgment was built merely upon the absolute discretion of the crown in the distribution of military command: they inferred that the approval of Arthur’s proceedings and the dismissal of Bradley, were sufficient evidence of the royal will.

This was not the only charge exhibited against Arthur. In Honduras, slavery existed in its foulest forms.

Colonel Arthur obtained the countenance of an important class of politicians, by the compassion he expressed for the negro race, and his exposure of the connivance of magistrates at the cruelty of masters. He minutely described the sufferings of several women of color in his despatches to the secretary of state; and especially denounced that atrocious bench, which admitted a plea of ownership in justification of the crime of maiming. The details given by Arthur fully justify his interference, and the enmity of a people by whom they were tolerated inflicted no disgrace. Thus a mistress, whose careless severity injured the eye and severed the ear of a negro woman, pleaded the rights of property, and the magistrate admitted the defence, although the character of the sufferer was unimpeached. In flogging, the owners often stripped off the lower clothing of the female slaves, threw them on the ground, and fastened their limbs to stakes.

Wilberforce and Stephen, the great advocates of slave liberation, who possessed influence with the executive, considered Arthur a valuable coadjutor in their glorious cause, and were supposed to pardon the arbitrary spirit of his government for the sake of his philanthropy. This evangelical alliance was a standing subject of reference and criticism.

It may be proper to notice the moral state of this colony on Arthur’s assumption of office. The meeting which adopted a farewell address to Sorell, authorised a similar compliment to Arthur on his accession. It was couched in the language of cold respect: parting reluctantly with their late governor, the people were less disposed to welcome his successor. The reply of Arthur was not less formal and cold: he took occasion to express his conviction that the moral example of the free population was essential to the improvement of a class less favored; and that while employing his authority for the general welfare, he was resolved to maintain the rights of the crown. Such sentiments and purposes were just; but scarcely likely at that moment to be heard with pleasure. The good sense of Sorell discountenanced the excesses of vice, but the moral standard of England he had not attempted to raise. The domestic circumstances of Arthur were more favorable to his authority as a censor; and happily for our ultimate welfare, he resolved to discourage violations of social decorum. Many settlers, whose rank in life made them unwilling to contract lawful marriages with prisoners or their offspring, were surrounded by a numerous race. Their example affected those in stations beneath them. To arrest this domestic evil, was doubtless the duty of Arthur; but it was not always performed with consideration. Many were unable to marry; but were unwilling to abandon connexions sanctioned by the circumstances of the colony and the habits around. They were placed under a ban: the favours of government were denied them. Such as were in subordinate offices were dismissed; and however lasting the utility of this rigour, its immediate consequence was irritation, resistance, and contempt.

The state of the prisoner population, though considerably ameliorated by Sorell, was far from satisfactory. Left much at their own disposal from the hours of labor till their return, they were masters of that portion of their time most suitable for dissipation and crime. The extent of their depredations, and the deliberation with which they were performed, indicated an extensive confederacy. The subordinate police, prone to connive with offenders, was ill-regulated and insufficient. Goods were carried off in masses: bags of sugar and chests of tea were abstracted from the stores; cart loads of property were swept off at once. The habits of the populace were daring, profane, and intemperate; and to coerce such materials into order, required the utmost vigour and discretion.

The chief justice, John Lewes Pedder, Esq., brought from Great Britain the charter of the supreme court, which was proclaimed in the market-place on the 7th May, 1824. On the 24th of the same month, the court opened for business, and Joseph Tice Gellibrand presented his commission as attorney-general. In his opening speech he declared his resolution to adopt the maxims of the illustrious Hale. He eulogised the jurisprudence of his country, and especially trial by jury; but the military uniform which appeared in court, if it did not lesson its utility, deprived the institution of its grace.

The first person tried was named Tibbs, for killing a negro, who while watching for thieves was himself taken for a robber. Though not a constable, he found pleasure in detecting the crimes of others, and had in some instances succeeded. He fell a victim to this singular passion: he was haunting the premises of a settler, by whose servant he was slain.

The first prosecution for libel was at the instance of Mr. R. L. Murray. This gentleman, formerly a captain in the army, had been transported for bigamy. At an early age, while stationed in Ireland, he became acquainted with a presbyterian lady, and was married to her according to the rites of her faith. Considering himself trepanned, he came to the conclusion that the ceremony was void, and subsequently espoused another. Twenty years after, he was prosecuted; but not at the instance of the parties more immediately concerned. In an appeal to the British nation, published at the time, he ascribed the charge to malice; and he made several unsuccessful efforts to obtain the reversal of the sentence. In the opinion of eminent counsel, the ceremony was invalid; and many years after, the judges decided that the marriage of a presbyterian and an episcopalian in Ireland, could only be celebrated by a clergyman of the establishment. Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Whitbread called the attention of the Commons to the extreme severity of the sentence, and were resisted by the ministers with party warmth.

Murray was educated at Westminster and Cambridge; and had spent twenty years in the service when his commission, as captain in the Royal Waggon Train, was declared forfeited. After residing some time in New South Wales, he settled in this island: his extensive experience and literary talents procured his admission to the limited society. Having adopted the opinion that an independent colonial government would not add to the freedom or prosperity of the colony, he opposed the petition. The committee for its promotion set up a placard, which referred to the history of the dissentient, and exposed themselves to a criminal prosecution.

The establishment of a court seemed to be the signal for an outbreak of disorder and violence. Many prisoners escaped from confinement, and for a long period a succession of depredators alarmed and pillaged the colony. The settlers promptly tendered their assistance to the government, to garrison the towns or scour the bush. Their assistance was chiefly valuable for the moral support it afforded, and its influence on the minds of the labourer in bondage. The exploits of the bushrangers properly belong to the history of transportation, and are related in Vol. ii. . The terrors they spread retarded the occupation of the country, and joined with the assaults of the natives made the life of a Tasmanian farmer one of considerable danger. At this time the remote estates were guarded by soldiers: loop-holes pierced the walls; fierce dogs were stationed as sentinels; and the whole strength of a district was sometimes employed in pursuit. Few settlers have escaped assault and loss. Many families, who in Great Britain thought of an armed robber only with feelings of terror, by long familiarity with scenes of danger, acquired a cool courage, which would not dishonor a soldier by profession. The unsparing sacrifice of the robbers captured, gradually terminated the practice of bushranging, and the colony enjoyed a long season of comparative repose.

The duties, levied first by the authority of the governor-in-chief, and afterwards sanctioned by parliament, were collected by the Naval officer, who received 5 per cent. on the amount: he also performed the duties of treasurer. Dr. Bromley, the surgeon of the first fleet, subsequently made seven voyages to the colonies, when he obtained the appointment. The infrequent examination of the accounts, exposed the treasury to undetected pilfering, and the colony to loss: in 1824, a large defalcation was discovered, which, ascertained by a jury of merchants, amounted to L8,269. They recommended the defaulter to the lenient consideration of the government, as the victim of others. Dr. Bromley had been subject to the daily peculation of servants, and robbed of cash and plate, to the value of L500, at once. His integrity was not impeached: the public business, however, had been conducted without check. The per centage was abolished, and the offices of treasurer and collector separated, and confided to Mr. Jocelyn Thomas and Mr. Hamilton.

The admission of goods liable to customs had been lax. The new settler landed his rum duty free, when intended for his own use; but smuggling was carried on to a large extent, and the protection of the revenue required a more severe supervision. The rigour was not always exercised with courtesy; and the vallise of Mr. Edward Lord, formerly acting-governor, was detained by the naval officer, with some expressions of indignity.

The merchants were deeply offended by the imposition of a duty at Hobart Town, higher than was fixed by Brisbane at Port Jackson, as injurious to their trade; and that duties levied prior to landing, were sometimes imposed on wines never actually delivered. They requested that the charges might be equalised with the other port, and that the excess already taken should be restored. In reply, Arthur not only refused to entertain the petition, but vindicated with great ardour the conduct of Hamilton, as a traduced and excellent public officer. Such was the answer to the merchants who complained of excessive and unequal imposts. Dissatisfied with the reply, they required the sheriff to call a public meeting, to address the governor-in-chief, the colony being still a dependency. This the sheriff, Mr. Dudley Fereday, declined, complaining that his honor Colonel Arthur was not mentioned in the requisition, and the object of the meeting not sufficiently defined. A meeting was therefore called to reprobate the ignorance and presumption of the sheriff; but the dispute ended without any other practical consequences than a wide impression that the government was despotic and contemptuous.

A more important variation between the colonies was displayed on the question of trial by jury. The magistrates of New South Wales were required to shew cause for the non-issue of a precept to the sheriff, to summon a jury. The rule nisi was made absolute. Chief Justice Forbes decided that the magistrates derived their commission from the king, and not the parliament; that their functions and obligations were settled by common law; were not mentioned, and therefore not taken away by the act. The petty session thus traced its existence to the royal commission: the supreme court to the parliamentary law.

When the report of the determination by Judge Forbes reached this colony, Mr., now Sir Alfred Stephen, brought the question before the court in a similar manner. He argued that it was the duty of the court to construe the act of parliament in a form the most favorable to the subject. On the other side it was maintained, that the colony was too small to furnish civil juries, and the parliament had superseded them. The act itself which instituted the military jury for the supreme court, and gave civil juries in civil cases, left the extension of the practice to the royal discretion alone.

Judge Pedder, in giving judgment, stated that according to the practice previously in the colonies no civil juries had been known, and the act of parliament which conferred trial by jury did not give a common one, but retained the military jury. On the whole he was of opinion that parliament had overruled common law, and taken away trial by jury, except as provided by the act, or extended by the king.

Thus, while Judge Pedder ruled that the petty juries were illegal, at New South Wales they were sitting under the sanction of the then superior authority. That the decision of our supreme court was a more correct interpretation of the intentions of parliament, is scarcely to be doubted; but the words of the act did not necessarily extinguish a common law right, and the intention of legislators is not law. The decision of Forbes was more agreeable to Englishmen, though scarcely compatible with the condition of the country.

The treatment of Mr. Gellibrand, the attorney-general, who was dismissed from his office by Arthur, for unprofessional conduct, excited great interest in the legal circles of Great Britain. The disagreement sprang chiefly from a trial, Laurie v. Griffiths, characteristic of the times. The plaintiff sued for damages for the illegal capture of a vessel of 12 tons, of which he was the owner and master. The vessel, called the Fame, was found by the brig Glory in Twofold Bay. Griffiths, the owner of the Glory, invited Laurie on board, and made him prisoner. He then boarded the Fame, deprived her of charts and compass, and amidst the shouts of his seamen fastened her to the tail of the Glory. In this condition she was carried triumphantly towards Launceston; but a storm arising, the Glory encumbered by the Fame, cast her adrift, when she was exposed to great danger. The prize-master ran her on shore, and the party wrecked, after fourteen days journey through the woods, reached George Town. The justification pleaded was that the plaintiff had conveyed prisoners from Port Jackson, and was liable to forfeiture; that he had embarked in an unlawful voyage, and intended to visit Launceston to circulate forged paper. No proof of these assertions was offered, and the jury granted L460 damages; a verdict which the government found no occasion to disturb.

Mr. Gellibrand, upon the close of the action, was called to account for mal-practice. Mr. Dawes, an attorney, presented a statement to the governor, which was forwarded to Judge Pedder, who returned it as not within his province. Mr. Alfred Stephen, therefore, brought the complaint formally before the court, and moved that Gellibrand should be struck off the rolls. The main question was this: whether a barrister holding a general retainer could, without license, advise the opposite party, or whether he could draw pleas for both. It was maintained by Mr. Stephen, that the practice was dishonorable and dangerous: in the early stages of a cause facts might become known to a barrister, which would make him a formidable antagonist to his former client. He asserted that whether the practice were common in England or not, it was detestable; and if allowed, would compel him to relinquish the profession, “or seek an honorable pittance elsewhere.”

In the case of Laurie v. Griffiths, Mr. Gellibrand had drawn the pleas for the plaintiff, and afterwards acted officially against him; he, however, transferred the fee he received to Mr. Stephen, when he was compelled to relinquish the cause. The profession, almost unanimously, asserted that the custom of the English bar warranted the practice of Gellibrand. The judge stated that he was not concluded by the custom of the English bar, and that the court might treat as a contempt a practice tolerated at Westminster: he considered the custom pernicious, but dismissed the case, and left the governor to act for himself.

The appeal of Mr. Gellibrand to the profession perfectly vindicated his conduct. It was found that the first counsel in England often acted against a retaining client, and sometimes drew pleas on both sides. Thus, in a question of a right of way, the same counsel drew the declaration, the plea, and the replication. However objectionable at first sight, where legal technicalities are so fatal to even a right cause, it would be no small hardship were an opulent person permitted to engross the legal talents of an island, and exclude his antagonist from the possibility of obtaining justice. The excitement occasioned by this dispute was of long continuance, and motives were freely imputed.

Although the chief justice dismissed the motion of Mr. Stephen, the governor determined to press the charge, and appointed a commission of enquiry. Additional matter was urged: it was said that Gellibrand advised a client to enter an action against a magistrate, whom his office might oblige him to defend, and that his intimacy with Mr. Murray did not become his relations with the government. Mr. Sergeant, now Judge, Talfourd regretted that by quitting the commissioners appointed by the governor, he had damaged his case. The crown had a right to dismiss; but he was clearly of opinion that the proceeding of the local officers was the effect of either “malice or mistake.” The charges of professional malversation he pronounced too absurd for notice; that the practice was not only allowable but often imperative.

Mr. Stephen, on his passage to this colony was involved in a quarrel, which ended in an assault. On his action he obtained L50 damages. His bill of costs, twice that amount, was published, to contrast with the professional scruples which inspired his opposition to Gellibrand. This bill consisted of one hundred and twelve items, among which the following: “to instructions for replication,” “for brief,” “retaining fee.” Many other such payments of self to self, passed the taxing of the master. After paying actual expenses, Mr. Stephen, however, handed the surplus to a chanty.

The master of the supreme court arrived in October, 1824. This gentleman was the brother of the late William Hone, a party writer of great celebrity, whose opinions in early life were extreme, both in reference to politics and religion. For publishing parodies, which employed the language of the Common Prayer as a vehicle of political complaint, he was tried by Lord Ellenborough. His fame was greatly increased by the pertinacity and skill of a successful defence. He afterwards wrote the Day Book, a work of ability and research; and in the last years of his life he embraced the faith, and died with the reputation of an ardent christian. Joseph Hone, Esq. succeeded Mr. Gellibrand. The uniform gentleness of his character has been respected by the press: he is mentioned only to be praised.

The arrival of General Darling was a time of festivity: he proclaimed the independence of the colony on New South Wales, December 3, 1825. While present, he was entitled to govern; but when he set sail, Arthur, who had been addressed as “Your Honor,” assumed the authority of governor-in-chief, and, responsible only to the home-office, became “His Excellency.” The colonists were less delighted with the possession than the prospect of a chief governor; although the spirit of General Darling was not more favorable to the enlargement of their liberties.

The legislative and executive councils were appointed, consisting of officers of the government: among them, it is said, a relative of Spencer Perceval, the statesman. He had been nominated to an office in this colony, but he never arrived; his name is, however, second on our first list of legislators.

The division of the island into police districts, subject to a stipendiary magistrate (1827), brought the prisoner population under the more direct control of the government. It was a great improvement in the internal discipline of the colony. Gentlemen, themselves masters, were liable to the bias of a position full of vexation and disappointment, and less favorable to a cool and impartial administration of justice. The executive revised their sentences, and thus reflected on their judgment. Nor were they willing always to spare the time required by a patient investigation, or to distinguish between a frivolous and a proper defence. Some curious examples of magisterial equity are often told: one rose from the bench, when he heard his waggon in the street, and delivered his sentence in his progress towards the door “I can’t stop: give him fifty.” A cattle stealer owed his life to the same impatience of enquiry: before the charge was half investigated, the magistrate said, “give him fifty” an easy compromise with the hangman. A reverend gentleman met a party of men brought up for disobedience: he sent them back, with “ah, well, give them five-and-twenty all round.” It was common to send a note with the man whom it was intended to punish: he was flogged, and sent back. A man, suspecting the contents of such a missive, gave it to his fellow-servant, who was flogged in spite of his protests. Another, who had been on a similar errand before, returned next day to his master, complaining bitterly of his suffering; but he had destroyed the note and eluded the triangles. Such eccentricities of justice could not last beyond the rudest era.

The site of the capital narrowly escaped a second change. The commissioner, Mr. Bigge, considered that the seat of government should be fixed nearer to the source of the river Derwent. Brighton was nominated the destined city, close to an extensive and fertile country, and within easy access to the interior. Arthur was instructed to determine this question. Its chief inducement was the removal of the prisoners from the temptation of the port; but property was already invested to a large amount. The merchants strongly opposed the transfer. The division of the government from the chief population would have destroyed its moral influence. Arthur did not press the project, and during a conference with the merchants and other principal inhabitants, discussed the question with courtesy. On the whole, the measure was impolitic, and finally abandoned.

The uncertainty for some time obstructed the progress of the place. Launceston was still more unfortunate. When York Town was abandoned as the chief settlement, Paterson removed his head-quarters to Launceston; but on the visit of Macquarie he determined to constitute George Town the northern capital. The superior convenience of a spot at the head of the river to one forty miles distant, gave Launceston the mercantile preference. Macquarie maintained his project to the last; but the opinion of Mr. Bigge determined the dispute in favor of Launceston, and the head-quarters, in 1824, were removed finally from George Town.

A fatality has seemed to attend the selection of chief townships in the colonies. Sydney is a second choice, Hobart Town a second, Launceston a third, Melbourne a second. New Zealand has experienced the same vexation and losses which proper surveys might easily avoid. The general government can have no sinister interest in these changes, but those who foresee and promote them may largely gain.

The principal objection to Launceston was the navigation of the river, which was dreaded by vessels of tonnage; but its reputation was worse than its dangers. Lighters, and even rafts, were employed to discharge ships which would now approach the wharves. The Aguilar, Captain Watson, spent several months at George Town, and charged the detention on the river. This was resented by Arthur, who stated that the master had dispatched the mate and seamen on a sealing voyage, and loitered for the purpose of traffic; and sought to excuse the delay by defaming the port.

SECTION II.

The newspapers of this hemisphere were long mere vehicles of government intelligence, or expressions of the views and feelings of the ruling powers. A censorship established from the first issue, was rigorously exercised, and the founder of the Australian press spoke of its vexations to the end of his life, with horror and tears.

This was George Howe, a Creole of St. Christopher. He arrived in New South Wales in 1800: with the sanction of Governor King, he obtained material from Great Britain, and sent forth the first-born of the Australian press, named the Sydney Gazette, and New South Wales Advertiser, on the 5th March, 1803. The conduct of a periodical was a work of toil and anxiety: the default of material, the paucity of local intelligence, the vices of the prisoner workmen, and the jealousy of the authorities, severely tried the industry and patience of the intrepid printer. He continued his toil until his death, having kindled the unextinguishable torch of a free press, and taken his rank with the benefactors of mankind.

Sir Thomas Brisbane at first relaxed, and then removed restrictions from the press. In 1823, he permitted the discussion of colonial affairs, and in the month of October, 1824, the colonial secretary informed Mr. Howe that he ceased to be amenable, except to the courts of law.

Malice or humour, in the early days, expressed itself in what were called pipes a ditty, either taught by repetition or circulated on scraps of paper: the offences of official men were thus hitched into rhyme. These pipes were a substitute for the newspaper, and the fear of satire checked the haughtiness of power.

The Hobart Town Gazette, established by Andrew Bent, the first permanent newspaper, was under the immediate patronage and control of the government, and Mr. Emmett was the first official editor. The articles were brief, mild, and complimentary: they represented the views of the ruler; perhaps, at that time, also of the people.

On the arrival of Colonel Arthur, Mr. Bent determined to throw off official supervision, and claimed a property in the title of the Gazette. The partnership between him and the government was not very distinct. Money had been lent for the purchase of material, but this he was expected to repay. His right to the property, questioned by Arthur, was allowed on reference to the governor-in-chief. The editor of Mr. Bent’s choice was Evan Henry Thomas, Esq. In June, 1824, appeared the first article of the press thus set free; and, as the first, is worthy lasting remembrance. “We esteem ourselves,” observed the writer, “a BEACON, placed by divine graciousness on the awfully perilous coast of human frailty.” “We view ourselves as a SENTINEL, bound by allegiance to our country, our sovereign, and our God. We contemplate ourselves as the WINNOWERS for the public.” He then proceeds “We desire to encourage the cloudless flames of rectified communion,” rejecting “each effusion, however splendid, of degenerate curiosity and perverted genius of misanthrophic ascerbity and calumnious retrospection.” Such were the vows and resolutions of the father of journalists. He added, “the duties of our typo-graphic province are performed by the proprietor and one assistant.” Having offered his columns for discussion, a writer of considerable colonial fame, R. L. Murray, appeared under the signature of “A COLONIST.” His letters addressed to Arthur, reviewed his government contrasted with that of his predecessor: they were said to approach the style of Junius; read in modern times, they may have lost much of their spirit. They were, however, offensive to Arthur, and he resolved to start another Gazette, which should put down opposition.

As the quarrel warmed, Bent grew more daring, and the first ex-officio prosecution was instituted against him. Rather by implication than directly, the lieutenant-governor was charged with attempting to deprive Bent of his property; the fraud being defeated only by the superior justice of Governor Brisbane. In another paragraph the writer stated the extra martial incarceration of Colonel Bradley, taught the colonists what might be expected from Arthur’s anger. In one of these libels, Bent declared that he would not surrender his rights to a “Gibeonite of tyranny.” The attorney-general ingeniously explained, that though Gibeon was a good man, that did not qualify the inuendo. Fox was a friend of freedom, but such was not the Foxite of tyranny. In truth, the whole discussion is painful to a friend of liberty and justice. It is difficult to imagine a less dangerous opposition than such compositions, or to account for their prosecution, except as an outbreak of offended pride.

In 1825, George Terry Howe had established the Tasmanian at Launceston; but the offers of the government drew him to head-quarters, and, in concert with Dr. Ross, he became the printer of the Government Gazette. In this official publication there were articles of news and politics; but in 1827, the Courier being established, the Gazette issued as a separate publication. Mr. Bent complained bitterly of the piracy of his title: he, however, soon yielded, and changed the designation of his paper to the Colonial Times, August, 1825. The Tasmanian, of Hobart Town, soon followed, and discussed the various political questions with moderation and ability.

Arthur resolved to put down the liberty of the press. It had, indeed, been asserted that this measure was dictated by Lord Bathurst; but the manner in which it was defended by Arthur, identifies his memory with the scheme. An act was passed, at the close of 1827, which laid the colonial press at his feet. This ordinance appointed a license, subject to the will of the governor, and made the continuance of a paper dependent on his pleasure: authorised a tax of threepence each, and took securities for penalties. Bent was refused a license, and even his right to publish an advertising sheet was disputed. He therefore published monthly, from the 1st March, 1828, the Colonial Advocate; a work of considerable merit, and containing much valuable information. It was, however, 5s. a number, and not adapted to colonial circulation. The Austral-asiatic Review, by Murray, also made its appearance in February, 1828; and although the publishers of these productions were injured by the law, the governor was not the gainer.

It was not to be expected that the colony would quietly submit. An address, signed by Meredith and several other magistrates, animadverted on the measure with just severity. They declared that the restrictions imposed were needless, unconstitutional, and debasing: that they were an insult to the colony; contrary to the implied engagements of the crown, when emigration was invited. The reply of Arthur asserted, that so long as this was a place for the reception of convicts, the press could not be free: that it was dangerous to authority, and calculated to destroy the security of domestic life. Some opinions expressed by the remonstrants, he pronounced presumptuous and unjust. In the controversy, the people were successful, as they were nearly unanimous. The law was disallowed by Sir G. Murray, and the press set free. However offensive the remarks of these writers, to describe their suppression as a measure of police, was both disingenuous and absurd.

Alarmed by the threats of prosecution, the author of the “Gibeonite libel” presented an apology in the following supplicating terms: “We avow our readiness to preserve inviolate the best and most endeared interests of this community; and we trust that, before misanthropy again can rally his vituperative legions to assault us, we may re-evince to all how staunch is our allegiance, and how sullyless our zeal at the post of probity!” The unfortunate printer could not soften his prosecutor, and was cast in damages and expenses amounting to L500.

In 1829, Launceston was favored with two newspapers: the Advertiser, and the Cornwall Press. Both started together, and both manifesting the spirit of rivals. The Advertiser was the property of Mr. John Fawkner. Its opponent belonged to Mr. S. Dowsett, and reached the nineteenth number. The following are memorials of their fraternal sympathies. The Cornwall Press describes his rival as “an addle-pated upstart a superannuated Zany.” His writings “as the frothings of a beer cask.” “Condescending to notice 5 feet 2-1/4,” he remarks, “we dropped from our proper elevation.” What that might be, it is not difficult to conjecture, if the rejoinder is to be credited: “if he had his right place, he would be wearing a leather apron and scouring pewter pots.” Such were the literary love tokens of those days. It will be seen, that the quarrel of Arthur with the press, was continued to the end of his administration.

SECTION III.

Captain Dixon, commander of the Skelton, came to Van Diemen’s Land in 1820. On his return to England, he published a small volume on the capabilities of the country. He suggested the formation of a pastoral company, with a capital divided into L100 shares, as a profitable scheme. Causes foreign to this enquiry reduced the marketable value of money, and awakened a speculative spirit in Great Britain: projects of every kind found favour a madness fraught with insolvency, fraud, and ruin. But in the meantime the Van Diemen’s Land Company had been formed. Men of opulence and prudence, when compared with common projectors, were concerned in its origin. They proceeded with caution, and postponed the issue of their share list until their plans were laid. Nor did they promise a dividend, but as the result of a considerable outlay, and at a distant date. Yet they drew a brilliant picture of this colony, and delineated in vivid language the riches of its soil, its relative position, and its future destinies. “Such advantages,” said they, “could not long escape the penetration of the British public.” It was, among their objects, to relieve Great Britain from dependence on foreign wool; to improve the quality of the Australian flocks: this object they have contributed to accomplish.

They applied to Lord Bathurst for 500,000 acres of land. By his countenance they obtained an act of parliament, under which the charter of their incorporation, on the 9th November, 1825, passed the great seal. By this charter they were authorised to employ their capital in cultivation and sheep farming; to lend money on mortgage and to persons engaged in fisheries; to undertake public works on security of tolls: but they were debarred from banking and commerce.

Lord Bathurst consulted Colonel Sorell: he was favorable to the company; but forwarned them that no large blocks of fertile land remained unlocated. The company received a grant of 250,000 acres, to be taken on the north-west coast in one square block; bounded by Bass’s Strait on the north; on the westward by the ocean; and by a line drawn from shore to shore. After some debate, this land was valued to the company at two shillings and sixpence per acre, and the whole quit-rent charged, was “four hundred and sixty-eight pounds, sixteen shillings:” redeemable at twenty years purchase L9,575. In the measurement, one-fourth allowed for useless land. The employment of convicts entitled the company to remission of quit-rent; L16 annually each man.

Mr. Edward Curr, at first the secretary of the company, became their agent. Having some time resided in Van Diemen’s Land, he had returned to England, where he published a book on the state of the country, remarkable for its clear narrative and sober delineation. The first ship dispatched by the company was the Tramnere (1826), followed by the Caroline. Some time was lost in selecting the settlement, and Circular Head was chosen. On a closer inspection, the district was not found encouraging. Near the shore the country is heavily timbered, and the high lands towards the westward were found barren and cold. Mr. Curr was anxious to bring his line as far possible towards the sun; but the governor held him to the literal agreement, under an impression that the grant was already improvident and excessive. The whole scheme was distasteful to Arthur: a powerful company having interests of its own, whose head-quarters were in London, might have been a counterpoise to his influence, had it not been pushed to the extremity of an inaccessible country. By the oversight or complaisance of Lord Bathurst, the rule which made the outlay of capital the condition of a grant, was not inserted in the covenant. The public works promised by the proprietors were never undertaken, and their establishment was but a larger farm than common. They ultimately obtained several blocks of land, which gave them command of an intervening country of 150,000 acres, at Woolnorth; 20,000 at Circular Head, 10,000 at the Hampshire Hills, 10,000 at the Middlesex Plains, 150,000 at the Surrey Hills, and 10,000 at the islands on the coast. The total actual cost, including survey, was 1d. per acre.

The operations of the company were conducted on a liberal scale: artizans were sent out. The proprietors were promised a remission of L16 for men, and L20 for women, on the quit-rent. This was the first encouragement of free emigration to this quarter of the world. A road was opened with Launceston, chiefly useful to absconders. The importation of sheep and horses of great value, was beneficial to the country. The sheep of the company cost L30,000 (1830), when they exported wool to the value of L2,000. The servants of the company left them on the expiration of their engagements: many before. The reports of the proprietors eulogised the management of Mr. Curr, and affirmed that the moral influence he had acquired rendered his government easy and his people contented. They asserted that ardent spirits were excluded: there were no police or prison, and none required. These statements varied from fact. The company provided no religious teaching for its people; and Mr. Curr, a Roman catholic, could not be expected to promote heretical creeds.

The losses sustained by the company were great: the cold destroyed the stock, and their crops often perished from moisture. On the Hampshire Hills many hundred lambs died in a night. Sometimes the season never afforded a chance to use the sickle: in the morning the crop was laden with hoar frost, at noon it was drenched with the thaw, and in the evening covered with dews; and thus rotted on the ground. The agent, however, did not despair, and the company anticipated a dividend in 1834, at the latest!

The company provided a numerous staff; beside the agent, were a commissioner, an agriculturist, an architect, and surveyors. Its local affairs were confided to a council of three, Curr being the chairman; but the divided sovereignty was impracticable, and the “Potentate of the North,” as he was sometimes called, soon reigned alone.

Servants engaged in Great Britain at low wages, on their arrival often escaped from the farms, and exposed the agent to great vexation. Sometimes they were pursued, and brought back by force: it was at last agreed to cancel their indentures, on repayment of the cost of their passage. In 1834, the population on the estate amounted to about 400 persons, of whom more than 200 were prisoners of the crown.

The New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land Establishment, formed at the same time, received a grant of 40,000 acres. They engaged to improve the stock of Van Diemen’s Land, and introduced valuable horses. Colonel Latour was a leading partner; Captain Thomas, speared by the blacks in 1831, was superintendent of the company’s affairs, which however were unprofitable for many years.

To these establishments the colony is indebted chiefly for the introduction of valuable stock. In this they were rivalled by private settlers. Bulls, of the Fifeshire breed, were imported by Mr. Patrick Wood; of Normandy, by Captain Watson. Saxon sheep were imported by Messrs. Gilles; from the flock of the Marquis of Londonderry, by Mr. R. Harrison; by Mr. Anstey, from the flock of Sir Thomas Seabright; by Mr. R. Willis, from that of Mr. Henty, of Arundel. Many others might be mentioned, but these were in advance of the public companies; and by 1830, little could be added to the varieties of the fold or the stall.

Among those employed in the Van Diemen’s Land Company’s service was Jorgen Jorgenson, whose adventurous life made him remarkable even among vagabonds. He was born at Copenhagen, 1780. After some employment in the coal trade, he accompanied the expedition of Flinders; and afterwards, as mate on board the Lady Nelson, attended the first party to Risdon. Having returned to Europe, and become commander of a privateer in the service of his country, he was captured after a smart resistance by the British ships Sappho and Clio.

He obtained, while out on his parole, the merchant ship Margaret and Anne, to carry provisions to Iceland, where the people were suffering extreme privation. On a second voyage the governor, Count Tramp, prohibited the intercourse: Jorgenson landed while the people were at church, and aided by his seamen took the governor prisoner. He then, with extraordinary impudence, issued a proclamation stating that he had been called by an oppressed people to assume the reins of government. He proceeded to reform its various departments: he lightened the taxes, augmented the pay of the clergy, improved the system of education, established trial by jury, formed an army consisting of eight soldiers, and fortified the harbour with six guns. Having performed these exploits, he returned to London in a prize taken from the island. His proceedings were already known to the ministry, and he was arrested as an alien at large. Jorgenson made no small stir by his appearance among legislators and conquerors. After a variety of adventures, in which he was often on the borders of crime, he pawned the linen taken from his lodging, and was sentenced to transportation. In Newgate he was employed as a dispenser of medicine. After four years detention he was released; but was retaken, having neglected to quit Great Britain, and transported for life. Such is the account he gave of his imprisonment. The penalty might have been commuted; but he undertook to write on various subjects, and created some trouble; he was therefore forwarded to this colony. Here he was chiefly employed as a constable; detected many crimes, and brought several to the scaffold. A woman, who had assisted him in discovering certain offenders, became his wife; and he was often seen fleeing from her fury through the streets. He, however, survived her, and at length closed his singular career in the colonial hospital.

Jorgenson made great pretensions to literature. He wrote a treatise on religion, and another on the treaty of Tilsit: in this country he published a pamphlet on the funded system, and a narrative of his life by himself. With a knowledge of the writer, it is amusing to read the grave strictures of the London critics, who complained that he bounded with amazing rapidity from one subject to another, without leaving a trace of his track: now among the stars then on a steam engine chasing infidelity or pelting atheism with meteoric stones.

SECTION IV.

The retirement of Lord Bathurst, and accession of Lord Goderich, gave some hope of a change in the form, if not the agents of government. The colonist expected much from the improved tone of the English executive; but, except the rescue of the press, the sole effect was a reduction of British expenditure for the civil government, and in 1827 its total cessation.

Mr. Hood, a surgeon on half-pay, had offended Arthur by a letter: a Gazette announcement informed him that he was placed under a ban; and his name recorded, to prevent his participating in the “favors or indulgencies of the local government” a help to official remembrance, which rulers seldom require. Thus official and opposition parties were organised: as the distinction became more marked, a social gloom overspread the capital. Whispers were heard with jealousy. The mercantile class, who alone could defy the government, and who were excluded from the “court circles,” headed the opposition. “The official corps,” said a satirical lady, who drew a picture of the times, “are punctilious; fearful of compromising their rank; all etiquette.” The entertainments at government-house were ceremonies, rather than parties of pleasure. As the servant opened the door, he seemed to say, “you may come in, but don’t speak.” Some more daring spirit would venture a remark, as ballast is thrown out to send a balloon above the fogs; but caution, like Sancho’s physician, interdicted the perilous indulgence, and restored the watchful silence. No Dutchman would willingly endure the Humdrumstadt on the Derwent, notwithstanding its natural advantages and commercial promise a town without a library, and where the common spirit of detraction was exasperated by competition for those favors the governor could refuse or transfer. The presence of power was everywhere felt, and dreaded wherever it could not be defied.

The close connection and constant intercourse between New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land affected the spirit of both governments. Sir Thomas Brisbane, whose easy temper and courteous manner rendered him highly popular, was superseded by Lieutenant-General Sir Ralph Darling, whose administration after the first few months was a perpetual storm. The chief justice, inclined to liberal politics, rejected several drafts of laws which trespassed on the limits of the constitutional act, which he himself had framed at the request of Lord Bathurst. At his dictation, the ordinance against the press was less stringent than intended. The titles of land, the property of masters in assigned labor, he determined against the government. He was considered the tribune of the people. Judge Forbes, a Bermudian by birth, was educated in an American college, and charged with republican tendencies by those who designed to degrade him.

Brisbane was the patron of the turf club. This office was accepted by Darling as his successor. He was invited to dine with the members: this he declined. Mr. Wentworth, as chairman of the day, made certain observations thought personally disrespectful; and when the governor’s health was proposed, the band struck up, without orders from the stewards, “There is na luck about the house.” Darling, informed of these proceedings, withdrew his name as patron. The club passed resolutions declaring their approval of Mr. Wentworth’s speech. The governor dismissed the acting attorney general (Moore), the sheriff (Mackarness), and other officials, for their concurrence with the majority.

Two soldiers, Thompson and Sudds, to escape from the service, committed a theft, and received a sentence in the supreme court. To aggravate its rigour, Darling brought them on parade: stripped them of their uniform, fixed round their necks collars set with spikes, and loaded their legs with chains. In a few days Sudds languished and died: this result, so unexpected, was attributed in part to a latent disease of the liver, rendered fatal by grief and the pressure of the iron. The affair became the subject of parliamentary inquiry. Darling was accused of murder by his enemies: he was vindicated by ministers; but although his motives were uncorrupt, an arbitrary aggravation of a judicial sentence who would seriously approve?

These transactions, together with the “Stamp Act” to check the circulation of newspapers, were noticed in the Australian (May, 1827) in terms of ironical praise; severe, but not beyond the ordinary license of public discussion. On the arrival of Mr. Baxter, the attorney general, the proprietor, Dr. Wardell, was prosecuted in the supreme court, at the instance of General Darling. Judge Forbes pointed out the violent straining of the inuendos, and through his charge led on to an acquittal. Although chosen by the prosecutor, the jury were unable to agree, and the defendant was discharged. The alleged libel stated that the stamp act “would immortalise” General Darling “in the annals of this rapidly improving colony, and act as a passport to the admiration and grateful respect of posterity.” The meaning extracted by the inuendos was this: “It would render his memory for ever infamous, and cause his name to be hated and detested by future generations.” The judge justly remarked, that between immortality and infamy there are many steps.

The struggles between the governor-in-chief and the opposition were watched in Van Diemen’s Land with interest. The same parties existed in both colonies; but Judge Pedder did not participate the political sympathies of Judge Forbes, and made no pretence to popular applause. To those who check the abuses of irresponsible power something is due; but when the balance of human infirmity is struck, it will not be always found in their favor.

The employment of spies has been charged on Arthur as a chief vice of his government a practice hardly less perilous to the innocent than guilty. Shortly before his retirement from office, Mr. Humphrey, the police magistrate, was denounced for corruption. Major Honner, who had formed a disgraceful connexion with Anne Pope, a prisoner of the crown, applied for her assignment to his service: this Mr. Humphrey refused. The major then offered to produce evidence against this officer, on condition that free pardons were granted to his witnesses, one of whom was found to be his paramour. The governor declined to pledge a reward; but Honner was assured by a member of the executive that, provided the results were satisfactory, his recommendation would be favorably considered. He forwarded a letter to the governor, who satisfied that the imputation was malicious and incapable of proof, directed the prosecution of the accuser. The transaction was unfortunate: the négociation indicated that secret informers were tolerated, and that pardons might be procured by a successful witness.

Mr. Humphrey, originally a mineralogist, who filled various offices from the foundation of the colony, received a pension of L400; but soon after died (1829). The governor eulogised in strong language his official career.

The recall of Arthur was announced, and the policy of his successor gravely debated before his career was midway. “It is a fact,” said the Sydney Gazette, “Colonel Davies is the distinguished individual.” “The successor of Colonel Arthur,” said the Australian (1829), “is placed beyond doubt. The appointment of Colonel Gibbs is now certain.” Clergymen of such names emigrated about the time, and rumour could easily supply the rest.

When the constitutional act approached its term, the colonists determined to seek not only for trial by jury, but a voice in the legislature. A petition adopted by a meeting held in 1827, was confided to a deputation, who were instructed to forward it through Arthur, and to entreat his concurrence with its prayer. A time was fixed to receive them; but when at the government-house, they were met by a blundering message, postponing the interview for one hour. Deeming themselves and their constituents slighted, they declined a second attendance. Arthur published a vindication of himself: he stated that business of great importance with Mr. Curr, prevented his examination of the documents; he had requested the delay only to prepare himself for the audience, and regretted that the colony were deprived of his friendly offices by an unreasonable caprice. This paper fell into the hands of the deputation a few hours after the vessel had sailed with despatches for the secretary of state. They considered this a manoeuvre, contrived to stifle their defence; and instantly dispatched a fast sailing boat to pursue the ship with an exculpatory letter.

By a circular of Lord Bathurst, still in force, it was announced to the colonists that their complaints must pass through the governor’s hands to the home-office. Duplicates without new matter might be forwarded by other channels; but an answer could only be expected on the arrival of the governor’s report.

The violation of this rule the deputation imputed to the necessity of the case; to counteract an attempt of the governor to evade its spirit. Their promptitude was unavailing: for his share in the transaction, the name of Mr. Gellibrand was expunged from the list of magistrates, by Lord Goderich’s orders.

The hostility of Arthur to the petition was well understood, and there were many others who did not sympathise with its object. Sir John Owen presented it to the Commons without a word. The ministers expressed their desire to grant free institutions, so soon as the colony was ripe to enjoy them, when Mr. A. Baring (Lord Ashburton) remarked that colonies are never ripe for free institutions until they get them.

Mr. Marshall, the shipping agent, attempted to form an association in London (1828), for the protection of these colonies. All persons, commercially or otherwise interested, were eligible for membership. A correspondence was projected with the leading colonists, and it was assumed the British government would readily attend to representations emanating from such a source. The scheme did not obtain the support it merited, and the scattered colonial interests could never be combined for a joint action. The partizans of Arthur ridiculed the plan, and it came to nothing.

The constitutional act, which became law, July 25, 1828, to terminate 1836, but extended until now, differs in many of its provisions from the last. The governor is president, and has a deliberative and casting vote. The council is increased from five or seven to ten or fifteen; the oath of secresy is abolished; drafts of acts are gazetted; a law cannot be made by the crown or the governor alone; two-thirds of the council must be present; although previous duties are confirmed, no new tax can be imposed except for local purposes expressed in the bill; ordinances must be conformable to English laws; all statutes in operation at the date of the act were applied to the colony, all others may be adopted. A member may draft a bill, which the governor must lay, verbatim, on the council table, with his reasons for refusing to propose it. A member may record his protest, and a majority is necessary to pass a measure. The members are appointed by the crown, and vacancies are filled up by the governor: they must be resident; ex-officio they are magistrates. The preliminary certificate of the chief justice, required by the former act, is substituted by another clause, which compels the council to reconsider a bill declared by the judge repugnant to the laws of England, or the act constituting the council.

The British legislature, in criminal cases, establishes a military jury alone: challenge is allowed for direct interests, and magistrates may act in default of commissioned officers; but in civil actions assessors are continued. But the local council is authorised to institute trial by jury, under such limitations as may be deemed meet. It is under this act of parliament that the colony has seen the jury-box delivered up to civilians; but awaits the hour which the law itself foretells, when in recognising the ancient principle of representation it records the purpose of resuming it, “so soon as the cause shall cease to operate which had forbidden its immediate observance."

In transmitting this bill, Sir George Murray explained that by the clause which superseded the veto of the chief justice, it was intended to avoid a collision of opinion between the high functionaries of government. Nothing, however, but the most urgent necessity would justify the governor in setting aside his opinion.

SECTION V.

Under the former act, the attorney general could refuse to file a bill, and exercised this discretion in a case of libel. The new law authorised the court to permit an information to be exhibited by any person, and the attorney general was bound to indict, except in felony or capital prosecutions. Mr. Jennings, a solicitor, claimed the interference of the court against the attorney general, Mr. Montagu. Savery, who was transported for forgery, was sued for a debt; but Mr. Montagu, who had been a passenger with the debtor’s wife, and felt interested in his welfare, stayed proceedings by verbal guarantee. When Jennings attempted to enforce the agreement, Montagu replied that he was more to be affected by the sun than the wind; and added, “I know how to defend myself against a person ten times more able or wicked than yourself.” The judge decided that the attorney general was not bound to sign a bill of indictment against, or to prosecute himself.

The indemnity due on a returned bill of exchange was decided by the court (1826), on a friendly suit, Cartwright v. Mulgrave, at the expense of the merchants. It was deemed proper to give a high compensation, both to solace for disappointment, and discourage a careless issue of bills. The plaintiff paid L112 currency for L100 sterling, calculating that L120 currency would be required in London for the L100 sterling. The assessors fixed 25 per cent. to cover all losses, and the sum has been allowed by the supreme court on all similar cases to this day.

Captain Dillon, of the Research, East India Company’s ship, the discoverer of the relics of La Perouse, visited Hobart Town. He was prosecuted for assault and false imprisonment by Dr. Tytler, a gentleman commissioned by the Asiatic Society to conduct the scientific enquiries the voyage might favor. He was seized, confined to his cabin, threatened with the lash, and guarded by New Zealand savages, among whom were two, called by Dillon Prince Brian Boru, and his Excellency Morgan M’Murrah, who espoused the quarrel of the captain, and offered to grill and eat the unfortunate physician. The jealousy and violence of Dillon strongly indicated insanity, and Dr. Tytler represented his fears to the second in command. This opinion became known to the captain, and led to the assault and imprisonment, from which the doctor was released by a writ of habeas corpus. The chief justice, in pronouncing judgment, explained the absolute power and stringent responsibility of a captain in the management of his company, and sentenced Dillon to fine and imprisonment: the latter was remitted, in consideration of his enterprise.

The public treasury was robbed of L1,400 (1827). The thieves entered at night, while the sentinel was on guard, and the rifled chest was found hidden under a tomb in the adjacent burial ground. Three persons, and the sentinel, were tried for the offence; but on the second day, the crown prosecutor was not in his place. This truant lawyer was enjoying a breakfast, while the court and prisoners were watching the door of entrance. The patience of the judge gave way, and he directed a verdict of “not guilty” to be entered. The crown relieved the treasurer from his responsibility for the loss.

The case of Isaac (Ikey) Solomon, a noted receiver, occasioned a long discussion of great colonial interest. This man having been committed for trial, escaped from Newgate; but his wife, implicated in the same transaction, was transported. A short time after, he appeared in Van Diemen’s Land, under the name of Sloman, and applied for his wife as an assigned servant: to this the governor consented, but transmitted to England an account of his presence. Towards the close of 1829, a letter, enclosing an affidavit of Mr. Wontner, the governor of Newgate, was addressed by the secretary of state to the governor, directing the arrest of the fugitive. A consultation was held at the secretary’s office, to which Mr. Gellibrand was invited, who declared that the instruments forwarded were insufficient. A warrant, however, was issued for Solomon’s capture, and he was lodged in gaol. On the application of Mr. Gellibrand, the supreme court granted a writ of habeas corpus, and the question arose whether a colonial secretary had power to act under instructions from the secretary of state, and without examination transmit a person, on a presumption of guilt, over half the globe. The judge admitted that the boasted liberty of the subject would be a delusion, were such powers vested in the local authorities. After a lengthened research and repeated hearing, he was unable to find a precedent, or to solve the difficulty of a case so new.

Mr. Montagu, the attorney-general, maintained that the writ had been improperly granted; that on the face of the warrant there was no illegality. The chief justice, however, was dissatisfied, and desired proof that the secretary of state could grant a warrant without sworn testimony in cases of felony, and that Mr. Burnett, the colonial secretary, possessed the same powers. Mr. Montagu, who had recently suffered ill health, refused to argue the question; and to the complaint of the bench replied with asperity. The chief justice still urged that he had received no assistance on the part of the crown. Montagu rejoined, that speaking not as attorney general, but as an advocate, he repelled such assertions. “I will not,” said he, “allow your honor, or any man in Christendom, to dare to make such observations without repelling them.” The caution of the chief justice was extremely gratifying to the colony. The arrest went to the foundation of personal freedom, and assumed a power capable of great error and perversion.

In this case there was no danger of mistake; and the governor, having no doubt of the prisoner’s guilt, determined he should not escape: Mr. Capon, the chief constable, cut the knot by putting Solomon on board a vessel, and conveying him to England. The adventure was barely successful; Solomon was acquitted on the greater part of the indictments. The legal claim of parties to the plunder found on his premises could not be established, except by his conviction.

On a trial of Salmon and Browne, for a murder at Macquarie Harbour (1829), a military jury exhibited that institution in no pleasing form. They disagreed on their verdict. Lieutenant Matheson conceiving that the facts did not sustain the indictment, declined to convict. His co-jurors were unanimous; and after three days and nights resistance he submitted. On the Saturday evening the men were sentenced, and executed on the Monday following. Their confession left no doubt of their guilt: they had committed murder that they might escape from misery; but they asserted that the principal was Browne, and the accessory Salmon the reverse of the indictment. During their long consultation the jurors were allowed refreshment; but on the Friday evening several resolved to elope: at a late hour they broke past the astonished constables, and returned to their homes. They were, however, recalled by the sheriff, and kept under stricter watch until the trial ended.

Amusements of the turf, officially patronised in other countries, were discouraged in this. From an early date, occasional matches were made for large stakes; but in 1827, races were regularly established at Ross. The course was lined off, a stand erected, in which about fifty well dressed persons were spectators. The riders were equipped in different colored clothing, and as they darted along, obscured at intervals by foliage, the scene was picturesque and animated. A race was contested by Messrs. Gregson and Hardwicke, which the latter lost. A public dinner followed; but the waiter was blindfolded, and his pudding stolen as he entered the tent. The hats and coats disappeared; and one cavalier was robbed of his boots. “These things,” said the reporter, “are fraught with discomfort, and disgraceful in themselves:” an opinion which time has not shaken.

Arthur probably had no great taste for such pleasures; but he ascribed his unwillingness to support them, to their tendency to excite the prisoner population, and seduce them into disobedience and crime. No regulations or punishments could hinder their haunting the tents, or deter them from intemperance and consequent miseries.

Happily dissention disappeared in the presence of distress. Arthur’s name is on the list of subscription for the family of Captain Laughton, who having lost his property by shipwreck and fraud, was drowned on the coast. Governor Arthur gave twenty guineas, and thus fixed the high scale of colonial benevolence, which no vicissitude of public affairs has abated.

The largest private subscriber was Captain Carne, of the Cumberland; not less unfortunate than Laughton. When no tidings were heard of the vessel, it was supposed she had foundered; but in the year 1828, Captain Duthie, of the Bengal Merchant, threw light on her fate. He had found the Clarinda, Captain Crew, at Rio, who had been boarded in la deg. S. The pirates chained him to the deck while they robbed the vessel: he saw a bucket, on which he could trace the word Cumberland. Some of the pirates proposed that Crew should walk the plank, but were resisted by the Captain. A little black boy, shipped by the Clarinda at the Cape de Verde Island, remembered the pirate vessel as often seen in that port.

In what form the Cumberland perished is not certainly known. Pirates executed in England for other crimes, were supposed to be guilty of this: more than a hundred and fifty persons perished by their violence. Some they cut down, and others they cast overboard. They were driven to the port of Cadiz by a storm, and attempting to negociate a bill they were detected. A ship of war conveyed them to Gibraltar, where several suffered; others were forwarded to England, and condemned there. The story of the capture was long a standing topic in the unarmed merchantmen that passed her track. As the emigrant, even now, approaches the supposed latitude, he hears with bated breath the fate of the Cumberland, whenever a strange sail darkens the horizon.

SECTION VI.

Attempts were made in the county of Cornwall to form a collegiate institution, for the education of youth and the advancement of science (1826). It was proposed to erect buildings, to govern the college by a directory of patrons, and to establish a public library and lecture room. For these purposes a fund was contributed: twenty-four persons subscribed L50 each on the spot. A commencement was made at Norfolk Plains; but the project failed, and sunk into a private academy.

In 1828, the government determined to establish a school at New Norfolk, called the “King’s Grammar School.” The members of the government were the board of guardians: the master was in holy orders. This effort was also frustrated. Such attempts were not, however, lost: they were in reality, not only the pledges but the causes of final success.

But the establishment of the King’s Orphan School (1828) was successful. It was chiefly designed for the numerous children whose parents were unable to support them, who had deserted, or who were dead. It was placed under the guidance of a committee, and afforded protection to many children who must have sunk under the influence of a vicious example. In this island the fatherless have found mercy. In the absence of natural ties, the settlers have often displayed a parental tenderness in educating the children of the outcast and the stranger.

The public institutions which multiplied at this period, tended to mitigate the spirit of party. In 1826, several master tradesmen met to project a mechanics’ institute. In 1827, they called a meeting of the inhabitants, who having chosen Mr. Gellibrand their chairman, organised the institution: the governor was invited to be patron, the chief justice was chosen president, and Mr. James Wood appointed secretary. Dr. James Ross, called the “Birkbeck of Tasmania,” delivered the first lecture (July 17), on the science of mechanics. The second, on astronomy, by Mr. Gellibrand, senior: Mr. Hackett, on steam engines; Mr. Giblin, senior, on astronomy; and Dr. Turnbull, on chemistry, completed the course. Mr. James Thomson gave lessons in geometry to a youthful class. These efforts languished during the absence of the secretary in Great Britain; but in September, 1829, the former lecturers reappeared: contributions were increased, and a library and apparatus were obtained from England. In 1830, two hundred members were enrolled, and the institution was promoted by all classes of society.

Among its supporters, Dr. James Ross occupied the first place: a man whose name will be ever mentioned with respect. His political career does not receive or deserve unqualified praise: as a partizan of Arthur, he sometimes sanctioned by his pen what it is difficult to vindicate; but he contributed to the intellectual advancement and external reputation of the colony, beyond any person of his day. Dr. Ross was the son of a Scotch advocate: educated at Aberdeen University, and some time employed as a planter in Grenada, where he became an advocate of negro freedom. He afterwards established a school at Sevenoaks, Kent; but his family kept pace with his fortunes. He determined to emigrate, and arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in 1822. Some error in the shipment of his goods, upon the schedule of which he claimed 2,560 acres, deprived him of one-half. He chose his location on the Shannon, and called his cottage the “Hermitage.” Here he was vexed with the incursions of cattle, the perfidy of his servants, the dread of bushrangers, and the visits of the blacks; and he willingly accepted the office of government printer, which Mr. Bent had lost. The Courier, his newspaper, patronised by the governor, obtained a large circulation, and in 1830 published 750 copies. He wrote with great facility and copiousness. In a letter to a friend, he said “I write my articles, engrave my vignettes, set the types, adjust the press. Sometimes I set up a few lines myself, and dictate at the same time to one or two of my compositors. Sometimes I write three lines of a sentence for one, three lines of a sentence for another. I teach my own children, nine in all, at the same time that I write paragraphs."

A genial spirit, except when troubled by political anger, usually sparkles in the writings of Dr. Ross, and in such case they are rather unfair than bitter. Wherever Arthur disliked, Ross opposed. He denounced the emigration of the poor, and Archbishop Whately charged him with baseness, in supporting the penal system of transportation; but no colonist would question his sincerity. Dr. Ross retired from his literary labors in 1837, and not long after closed his earthly toils. In his last address to the public, he said, “independence of spirit has been my motto; freedom my watchword; the happiness of my fellow-men my object; and the truth of our religion my buckler and consolation.” Such was his account of himself; and may be left as his merited eulogium to posterity.

A hand-bill, published during the heat of a political quarrel, from the head-quarters of his foes, is a curious specimen of party spleen, and may be taken as the set-off to his own: “Here lieth the body of James Ross, printer: formerly a negro driver: who spent the remainder of his days in advocating the cause of torture, triangles, and the gallows.” Then follow couplets, among which are these:

“Beneath this sod, mark reader, as you pass
The carcase buried of a great jack-ass:
Perfidious, smiling, fawning, cringing slave,
Hell holds his spirit, and his flesh this grave.
Corruption revels in a kindred soil:
A carcase fatted on an island’s spoil!”

An association, with objects more extensive and more ambitious in organisation, was projected by John Henderson, Esq., a surgeon, from Calcutta (1829). It was denominated the “Van Diemen’s Land Society.” The members proposed to collect and diffuse information respecting the natural history, produce, mineral worth, statistics, condition, and capabilities of Van Diemen’s Land. The governor accepted the office of patron of the society, and its establishment was celebrated by a public banquet. In his account of the institution, the founder and president relates that, although it enrolled the heads of departments and the most respectable settlers, he found himself surrounded by spectators rather than coadjutors; who, in the absence of “selfish interests” and personal advantage, could not be stimulated to toil. Dr. Henderson, whatever his science, was disqualified by his censorious dogmatism, to rule. His work was an outline of projects, which entered into every imaginable department of political economy, and contemplated a social revolution. On religion, his ideas were scarcely Christian: he combined the Brahmin and the Socialist.

SECTION VII.

The charter of the Van Diemen’s Land Bank having expired, it became a joint stock company, and enlarged its capital to L50,000; ten per cent. being charged upon discounts. The Tasmanian was a private bank, of which the Messrs. Gellibrand were proprietors. The limited business carried large profits, and the purchase of bills, not passed in the regular course of discount, then, as afterwards, yielded large returns. The Derwent, established chiefly by persons connected with the government, was opened for business on 1st January, 1828, with a capital of L20,000. At the same time, the Cornwall Bank, with L10,000, was established by the merchants of Launceston; and the facility of monetary transactions increased on every side. The arrival of considerable investments from India, brought rupees into extensive circulation, and they formed a great proportion of the current coin.

The large imports of English goods, and the increase of promissory notes, alarmed several persons connected with trade. An advertisement, signed John Dunn, offered a quantity of shares in the Derwent on liberal terms. At a meeting of the shareholders, Mr. Dunn maintained that the liabilities of the community were dangerous, and twenty times greater than the circulating medium. It was replied, that bills were chiefly multiplied by re-sales, and that the cash of the consumer would be transmitted through the whole mercantile chain.

The Van Diemen’s Land Bank discovered a singular fraud by the cashier in 1828. Amongst the large accounts, which were unlikely to be drawn, he debited the cash which he employed as a private discounter of bills. The sudden presentation of an unexpected draft led to an examination, and L2,000 were found deficient. The money was refunded, except a trifling amount, and prosecution waved.

The interest of the officers of the government in the Derwent Bank occasioned complaint. The risks, liabilities, and antipathies of trade, were deemed unsuited to their duties. At the governor’s request, the relation was disguised, but it was not dissolved.

The state of trade at this time wore a deceptive aspect. Dr. Henderson reckoned the actual profit of the colony at 1-1/2 per cent., while Mr. Prinsep, a barrister, of Calcutta, described every branch of business as a path to opulence. In 1829, a merchant sold L1,500 worth of goods at an advance of 50 per cent., and a credit over three years bearing 15 per cent., amounting to L2,250 in all. A glut sometimes reduced the value of merchandise below the London price.

“See, how I am changed!” said Mr. Prinsep. “Amongst all the beauties, I am beginning to think none so beautiful as the interests of capital. Interests alone on mortgage, with the very best securities, is 15 or 20 per cent. Invest your money in wool, and it brings you a return of 50 per cent. per annum: in the whale-fishery, 100 per cent. Bank dividends now paid are 16 per cent. I only brought down a broken-winded Arab or two, and their hire pays my current expenses. Money invested in land will be ten-fold its original value in fifteen years. L200 will purchase a noble property here; L1,000 will buy a fine, healthy, and beautiful estate two hundred of them already in cultivation. The whole colony is on the advance, and its resources remain to be developed.” Such was the bright picture published in Calcutta. The influx of speculators postponed the crisis, and prolonged the delusion.

The increase of capital, and the opening of cash credits, facilitated the operations of the settlers, but tempted many to ruin. The government rewarded the rapid improvement of estates, the erection of substantial dwellings, farm buildings, and fences, by grants of land in extension. To secure the proffered boon the settlers accepted the assistance of money-lenders, whose claims at length absorbed the proceeds of their toil. During a progress through the colony, the governor visited many establishments, and distinguished the enterprising agriculturist with special favor. On his return to head-quarters he expressed the pleasure his inspection had afforded; and noticed in a public order Mr. Gatenby, of the Isis, as a “good old English yeoman,” and an example of enterprise and skill. Well assured that his Majesty was desirous that the character of a plain, upright farmer, should meet with encouragement and reward, he added to this settler’s grant 1,000 acres. The “Gatenby farmers” were henceforth noted as a favored class; and many, anxious for the same recompense, borrowed, enclosed and improved, until they had not a rood of land to call their own.

The most distinguished money-lender was Sheriff Ferreday, whose ordinary charge was 35 per cent., or less with ample security. After a few years (1834) he returned to Europe, having realised L20,000 by usury. At his death, he devised a portion of his wealth to Oxford, to found a scholarship. He suffered much vituperation, probably with little comparative justice. “His bible,” said Mr. Gellibrand, “is his bill book, and his gold his god” a quotation from Burke, highly relished at the time.

The treasury was again robbed in 1832. It was observed the office papers were deranged: constables were stationed to watch, and a sentinel was placed at the door. The sudden examination of the chest by the governor discovered a more serious transaction. It appeared, capital had been borrowed from the chest without authority, to the amount of some thousands; the money was, however, restored. No public care could reclaim these funds from their tendency to escape, and they were not deemed sure until out of the custody of the government.

The secretary of state directed the public cash to be deposited with the banks. The treasurer was not authorised to retain more than L10,000 of paper, and the Van Diemen’s Land and Derwent establishments each received charge of L10,000 cash. During six years, the revenue had risen from L30,000 to L60,000: notwithstanding a very liberal official expenditure, the surplus funds (1831) amounted to nearly L40,000.

The interior communication was facilitated both by the business of the police and the cheap labor in the hands of the crown. The post of Sorell’s time was a private speculation, conveyed on foot, afterwards on horseback. On the 19th June, 1832, a “cheap and expeditious conveyance, to and from Launceston,” was announced. The owner, Mr. J. E. Cox, drove tandem, at the rate of forty miles a-day: only one passenger was accommodated, at a fare of L5. The practicability of the journey was then the subject of considerable betting.

In 1827, and during two following seasons, New South Wales suffered a serious drought, which increased in severity. Rivers were exhausted, and their beds left dry. Not only the want of rain was felt, but a withering blight, travelling in a defined current over the cultivated districts, cut off their harvests. In two years the cultivation of wheat in Van Diemen’s Land increased from twenty to thirty thousand acres, and the average price of wheat at Hobart Town was 8s. per bushel. This stimulated further production, and tended to avert from Van Diemen’s Land the distress, which over speculation and scarcity produced in New South Wales.

This dearth was followed by two plentiful harvests (1831), and a depression of price. The farmers of New South Wales entreated General Darling to establish a corn law, to check importation. In declining the project, he attributed the successful competition of this country to the superiority of its wheat and facility of transit; and hinted that the elder colony was indebted to foreign supplies for its subsistence.

SECTION VIII.

The powers of legislation confided to Arthur did not slumber. The council which enacted the laws, were chiefly officers of the government, and the discussion of measures was conducted in private. Whatever course they pursued, was justly ascribed to the governor himself. The early ordinances of Arthur added some new burden, or limited some indulgence. Their immediate aspect was, therefore, commonly austere and encroaching, even when their ultimate consequences were beneficial.

To prevent the clandestine sale of liquors (1827), the council authorised a constable, upon a magistrate’s warrant, granted on the belief of any person that ale, beer, or spirits were sold, to break open the house and seize the liquor; and unless the owner could satisfy the magistrate, the constable was permitted to stave and destroy the vessels. For the sale, not only were heavy penalties imposed, but unless paid the offender was liable to perpetual imprisonment; and even appeal was prohibited, except the penalty was first paid: one-half to the informer. This ordinance was afterwards mitigated.

The penal character of the colony was constantly indicated in the entire spirit of legislation. Thus a house could be broken into at night, when a person suspected as an absconder was expected to be found there: whoever engaged a convict, though in ignorance of his civil condition, incurred the penalties of “harboring.” Publicans were liable to fines for supplying such persons, even with common refreshment. Any man might arrest another, whom he chose to fancy a convict at large. These deviations from the practices of society in its regular state, were occasionally vexatious, but not commonly. The settlers being acquainted with each other, and the servants usually known to the constables, prevented those practical evils, otherwise inevitable.

Few colonial enactments have occasioned more vexation than the impounding laws. The interests of the grazier and agriculturalist were at variance. When the country was parcelled out for cultivation, the losses and annoyances of the settlers were severe. Their land unfenced, was often suddenly visited by a herd of several hundreds: their crops were trodden down, and devoured in a few hours. The invaders when alarmed were soon beyond reach. Nor was this the sole mischief: tame bullocks, seduced by the interlopers, often joined their flight; many days were spent before they were recovered; often they were finally lost. The unfortunate farmer, in the most important season, was compelled to leave his lonely home, and attended by reluctant laborers travel over many a hill and dale in search of the fugitives, with sadness of heart.

At the accession of Arthur, the country about the Clyde and Shannon was stocked with numerous herds, and from their bulk, the lands on which they fed were then called the Plains of Bashan. The herdsmen acquired great skill in tracking and driving the cattle. Their stations were in advance of the located districts, and opened many fine patches of country. Their horsemanship was celebrated: they gallopped amidst the trees now stooping, now leaning to the right or to the left; avoiding obstruction and escaping collision with wonderful agility. They lived a half savage life; were the reckless oppressors of the natives; often the accomplices of the bushrangers, and accused of many crimes. To brand the cattle, they were driven within an enclosure seven feet high, and when exhausted by hunger, one man armed with a pole threw a loop round the horns, another entangled the legs, and the beast was branded with a heated iron; then turned into the woods, or driven to market. Little caution respecting the rights of ownership was observed: several were capitally convicted, when probably they were careless rather than deliberately criminal.

An impounding law was proclaimed by Macquarie in 1820; but cattle being often driven to the pound for the sake of the fees, the ordinance was relaxed by Sorell. This continued the colonial rule until 1830, when Colonel Arthur enacted a more stringent law. The large stockholders were great sufferers, and were compelled to reduce their herds and increase their expense. The constables often corruptly exercised the great power this law gave them: cattle driven to the most distant pounds were not discovered until their expenses were greater than their value.

The larger herds belonged chiefly to gentlemen, of different families, but of the name of Lord. In describing their depredations, it was said that a party of the E.L.’s, D.L.’s, or the R.L.’s, had made an excursion. The complaining farmer was told that he might impound, but not maim them; but a troop of horsemen were required for this purpose.

The operation of the law was unequal: the small settler fed his stock on the rocks behind his location, where his rich neighbour, who could influence the police, was a competitor. Often his stock were never heard of until sold, perhaps to the son of the poundkeeper. Many hundred were bought for a few shillings each. False claims of damage were set up, and a kind of black mail was levied on the settlers to preserve their stock from molestation. To protect themselves, many of the more opulent settlers obtained the appointment of poundkeepers; and this office was held by persons who claimed the highest station in the country. The incessant complaints in newspapers of the day, partly prove the severity of the regulation. It was, of course, a subject of reproach to the government; yet it is certain that, while the injury was partial, the principle of the law was sound, and its operation on the whole beneficial.

To prevent the increase of dogs, a tax was imposed (1830). The aborigines possessed large packs, from fifty to three hundred. On the destruction of the aboriginal tribes, these animals escaped, hunted in large numbers, and committed great havoc, among the flocks: farmers lost five hundred sheep in a season. By a single gripe these wild marauders destroyed a sheep, and a few minutes were sufficient to strew the downs with dead. A tax was imposed, from 5s. to L1 each. Large establishments required many sheep and watch dogs, and the cost amounted to L8 or L10 per annum. The constables had summary power to destroy canine vagrants without collars, in town or country.

The Huskisson Act applied the laws of England to the colony, and thus it became a question whether the English interest of 5 per cent. were not the limit of lawful usury. The government paid larger amounts on the deposits of prisoners, and capital on such terms must have forsaken the country; the council, therefore, declared the restriction inoperative.

These ordinances were the subject of endless and angry discussion. The feelings of the community were not carefully consulted, and laws in the main useful, were too often pertinaciously encumbered with provisions both irritating and needless. The motives of the lawgivers were canvassed without reserve. They were supposed to employ their powers to facilitate extortion, in the profits of which they were said to share.

SECTION IX.

The dignity and independence based on landed wealth, is ever the chief allurement of the emigrant. Whatever his rank, he dreams of the day when he shall dwell in a mansion planned by himself; survey a wide and verdant landscape called after his name; and sit beneath the vineyard his own hands planted. To this common ambition the crown directed its appeals: acres, by hundreds and thousands, were offered for acceptance. The imagination of English readers overleaped a tedious interval of labor and disappointment. The generous impulse silenced the voice of fear and distrust: they took a last look at the sepulchres of their fathers, and came forth to establish their children among the founders of nations.

The distribution of waste lands, a most important function of colonial governors, has been a source of incessant perplexity and discontent. Sometimes they have been granted with ridiculous parsimony, and at others with scandalous profusion. Every minister has proposed some novelty: the regulations of one year have been abandoned the next, and the emigrant who loitered on his way found the system changed, which had induced him to set forth.

The stewardship of the royal domain has been liable to difficulties peculiar to itself, beside the full average of official injustice and corruption.

The endowment of emancipists with land, an American practice, was unsuccessfully revived in New Holland, and continued until the close of Macquarie’s administration, when Commissioner Bigge recommended that no grant should be less than 320 acres.

Instructions under the sign manual, given to the Governor of New South Wales, dated April, 1787, were amplified by others in 1789. To detain the convict population, and to provide them a future home, were the chief ends proposed. The governor was empowered to shorten their sentences, and convey to each man, if single, 30 acres; if married, 50; and 10 for every child. The marines who accompanied the first expedition were encouraged to settle. The non-commissioned officers received 130; if married, 150; and 10 acres for each child. Private soldiers 100, or 130 acres. These grants were subject to 2s. per 100 acres, deferred for five years. The minister, anxious to raise the value of crown land, directed reserves to be made between the allotments, of equal extent; but the settlers persuaded the governor, or the secretary of state, that the intervals favored the assaults of the natives, and the scheme was defeated.

The king’s instructions made no reference to the superior officers; but it was deemed absurd to grant the “greatest gifts of the crown to persons who had forfeited their lives,” and deny them to gentlemen bearing commissions in the army. Ensign Cummings accordingly received 25 acres! The subsequent donations of governors compensated for this modest beginning, and the officers obtained large and valuable portions. One governor conferred a considerable grant on his expected successor, and was rewarded, when he surrendered the government, with a similar boon. Macquarie gave Lieutenant-colonel O’Connel and his lady 4,555 acres; to John Blaxland, 6,700 acres. Sir Thomas Brisbane obtained 20,000 acres: 15,000 were given to Mr. Hart Davis. These were exceptions to the general rule. Official holders of land were interested in preventing extravagant grants, which lessened the marketable value of their own.

The survey department, always in arrear, neglected to measure off the land, and an order, verbal or written, was deemed a sufficient title. Not unfrequently, the applicant changed his choice, and migrated from one spot to another. The governor often permitted the issue of rations and implements a second time, to enable indolent or insolvent settlers to till a second heritage. Trade was, however, more agreeable to many emancipists than agriculture. The officers located near them were willing to purchase their petty farms: thus the small holdings were bought up, and the estates of the greater landholders were cleared of “lurchers,” who preyed on their flocks.

The small grants of land were productive of much real mischief and little benefit. They fell chiefly into the hands of spirit dealers, and the government permitted the purchasers to consolidate all such acquisitions into one large grant.

In 1814, Macquarie issued an order threatening the resumption of grants for non-residence or alienation. These notices were rather a protest than an interdict, and were so understood.

SECTION X.

Van Diemen’s Land was divided into counties by Governor King (1805). An imaginary line was drawn across the island from east to west midway; Buckingham being on the south, and Cornwall on the north. Macquarie made sections more minute, by a running survey.

In 1826, letters patent were issued, constituting Edward Dumaresq, chief, and Roderick O’Connor and Peter Murdoch, assistant commissioners, for the survey and valuation of crown lands. They were instructed in delineating counties, hundreds, and parishes, to observe the natural boundaries and recognised nominal limits. The parishes were to contain about twenty-five square miles. On this task they were ten years employed; but their valuation became available so soon as one parish was proclaimed. The names assigned to the various localities are commonly welcome to the British ear; though occasionally productive of confusion.

The colonial-office published, in 1824, the conditions on which land would be granted: the notice contained eighteen clauses, and formed the basis of subsequent regulations. The secretary of state, however, reserved a discretion in special cases. The parishes were to be surveyed, valued, and sold: for cash, at a discount of 10 per cent., or credit, at four quarterly instalment,600 acres was the maximum allowed one purchaser.

Free grants were offered to emigrant capitalists: not more than 2,650 acres, nor less than 320; a quit rent of 5 per cent. on the value of the land deferred seven years, and redeemable within twenty-five years, at twenty years’ purchase. One half the value was to be spent in improvements, on pain of forfeiture. Additional grants were restricted to such as possessed the means of cultivation, and subject to a quit rent from the date of issue.

A more ample explanation of the views of the crown issued from Downing-street, April 26, 1826. The conditions of sale were the same as in the notice of 1824. Purchasers of land were now promised the return of their purchase money, conditionally, that during ten years they could relieve the crown from an expense ten times its amount, by the employment of convicts, rated each L16 annually. One-half this amount was offered, in the redemption of quit rents, on the same conditions; or, when convicts were not attainable, by expending five times the value of the grant, one-half the quit rent would be extinguished. Grants in extension were promised, 2-1/2 per cent. value on improved value of an original grant, on which five times its value should be expended; or having so improved his first purchase, the settler was permitted to buy a second at half price.

By an order published at the Horse-guards, 1826, officers willing to emigrate, not under the rank of captain, were permitted to sell their commissions; one-third of the price deposited with the crown, to be repaid on their arrival, and rated as their capital, gave them a title to free grants. In 1827, the convict clause was withdrawn: the settler was required to produce L500 capital for each square mile he claimed.

Earl Bathurst suggested to the commander-in-chief, and to the lord high-admiral, that it was desirable to promote the settlement of naval and military officers in the colonies. Circulars were accordingly issued from the Horse-guards and Admiralty, in 1827, stating the terms on which free grants might be engaged. Officers of twenty years standing were exempted from quit rents; those of fifteen years standing, for twenty years; of ten, for fifteen years; and of seven, for ten years. The extent of their grant was made to depend on their capital; but they gave bonds for residence and non-alienation during seven years, or until, upon a grant of 500 acres, valued at 5s., L25 were expended. These offers drew a large number of settlers, both civil and military. More than five hundred grants, exceeding 500 acres, were issued in four years ending 1831.

Fictitious schedules of property were sometimes presented, and persons without capital were enabled by monetary loans to deceive the governor. Dollars, borrowed for the purpose, were lodged in the banks to the credit of an applicant. A considerable breadth, comprehending a succession of valuable farms, was parcelled out among several settlers, in virtue of a single bag of dollars, hired for the purpose.

The act of parliament authorised the subjects of Great Britain to visit the settlement of New South Wales “without any license whatever.” Persons intending to emigrate usually applied to the secretary of state for permission, and an order for a grant. Their references being satisfactory, they received a letter to the governor, directing that land should be given them, proportionate to their “means to bring the same into cultivation.” For some time, the settlers for this colony were obliged to visit New South Wales, to obtain the requisite permission. To avoid the expense and delay, some entered on lands provisionally assigned them by the lieutenant-governor; but were in danger of being dispossessed by an applicant at head-quarters. To obviate these evils, power was conferred on the lieutenant-governor to locate such as might arrive. Applications from residents were received only at stated periods; and when the herds were exhausted by loans, and the stores by the issue of rations, were indefinitely postponed; but such as brought orders from the secretary of state, were accommodated at once.

The newly-arrived emigrant, distrustful of reports, or ignorant of the nature of the country, usually went out in search of a home. He was received with hospitality as a guest, but found himself unwelcome as a neighbour. Often, after long travel, he would scarcely find a spot within an accessible distance unclaimed. “All that is mine!” was the common answer to his enquiries. A present of sufficient value removed many such obstacles, and gave the wanderer a clue to a desirable resting place. Such as were too dull to comprehend this process of discovery, often lost much time in unavailing toil.

SECTION XI.

Sir Thomas Brisbane, to facilitate the employment of prisoners, required that the grantee should, for every 100 acres of land granted, enter into bonds to employ one convict for the term of his transportation, or the average, ten years. By receiving a second convict for one year, he was promised a bonus of a second 100 acres.

This condition was a serious obstacle to the ready sale of location orders. It was not, however, unnecessary: many casual visitors and masters of merchantmen obtained grants, which they sold instantly and cleared a considerable sum. Land speculators were greatly disconcerted by the incumbrance: many were anxious to throw up land orders, and attempted to recover money for the goods given in exchange. A trial (1825), in which Mr. Underwood, of Sydney, was the plaintiff, is a curious example of this traffic. The defendant had given in payment for 21 cwt. of sugar, an order for 200 acres of land; but when the convict clause was promulgated, the land was deemed worthless, and the plaintiff sued for L59, the price of the sugar. The judge, however, resisted the claim, and declared that the order had paid for the sugar, although its sale was clandestine and illegal.

The occupation of land was considered a sufficient proof of ownership, if not disputed within a short period, or negatived by written evidence. To resume a location, as the courts were then constituted, required the issue of a special commission, and could be only effected through a jury. On a trial, in which the Rev. Robert Knopwood was defendant, Judge Field stated that the conditions of early grants were practically void. Knopwood had agreed to sell the estate of Cottage Green for L2,000, to Captain Jones, who paid L1,000 in hand, and entered into bonds for L1,000 for payment of the residue. Knopwood bound himself in a similar penalty to give up the premises when the whole sum should be paid. The widow of Jones sued for release from this bond (1821). The lawyers urged that Knopwood had violated the clause against alienation, and was liable to forfeit the whole. The judge refused to entertain this plea; but set aside the forfeiture as unequal: the estate, according to witnesses, was not worth more than L1,000. The judge strongly condemned the unclerical rigour of the defendant. The celebrity of Cottage Green, now occupied by extensive mercantile establishments, gives special interest to the judgment.

Efforts to resume land, not properly conveyed, were successfully resisted; and jurors appear to have determined, at all times, to deny a verdict to the crown. In 1824, in an action for intrusion (Rex v. Cooper), the jury delivered a verdict, that “the defendant had obtained possession in the usual manner.” The judges asserted that no title was good, except such as passed under the great seal. A locatee, in an action of ejectment (Birchell v. Glover), who possessed from 1811 until 1823, was supplanted by a person in 1824, who obtained a grant: the judge directed for the defendant, but the jury found for the plaintiff. A similar case (Martin v. Munn, 1833), was tried three times with the same issue. The judge directed, that although long occupation by the plaintiff were proved, the grant to the defendant was a virtual resumption by the crown: this the jury considered inequitable, and found for the original occupier.

The trial of a cause in Van Diemen’s Land (Terry v. Spode, 1835), led to the exposure of a fatal error in land titles throughout the colonies. Spode had claimed and taken possession of a portion of land occupied by Terry, who brought an action of ejectment: the jury gave a verdict in his favour; but it was stated by counsel that both grants were “defective and void in law.”

This error had been discovered by Mr. Alfred Stephen (1829). The secretary of state was consulted, and authority received by Arthur to amend the form. The royal instructions had authorised the governors to grant lands, which they had always issued in their own names, instead of in the name of the king. The judges stated that in every case, whether of a subject or the king, a conveyance must be made in the name of the owner, and not of the attorney. These grants were, therefore, utterly void. In New South Wales the defect was cured by special legislation; but in Van Diemen’s Land every grant was subject to an ordeal. Those already issued by Arthur had been legally worded after the defect was discovered; but the government of New South Wales continued the invalid form, until the judgment of the court led to its revision.

The importance of settling the titles to land was universally felt, but the difficulties were not easily overcome. Prior to 1826, the Van Diemen’s Land grants were drawn up in New South Wales. They were full of errors of all kinds: the boundaries, quantity, and names were mis-described; the land intended for one man was conveyed to another; inaccurate charts, on which grants were marked, multiplied mistakes; the surveyors ran their chains over the land, and marked off five or six farms in as many hours. They erased and altered their descriptions: accurate measurement discovered that many were without a title to the land in their possession, or that their grants were partly occupied by a next neighbour. The dates of these instruments were often arbitrary, yet they bound to cultivation and non-alienation, and often within years already past. Some printed forms contained stipulations not applicable, and became inoperative on the face of them: they described hundreds of acres in excess, but stated that those beyond the king’s instructions, should be taken as not granted at all.

When Mr. Alfred Stephen pointed out the defect in form, the government concealed the mistake until the king granted authority for correcting the error by royal warrant, received in 1830. It now became necessary to ascertain disputed titles. It was proposed by some to establish them by a general act: against this course Mr. A. Stephen protested, and pointed out consequences, that proved his objections were just. Many of these illustrate the idle and fraudulent manner in which the public business is often transacted. A grant issued in 1823, gave one side-line 32 acres, written over an erasure. An investigation took place: a record book kept in Hobart Town shewed a similar erasure. The same entry had been preserved at New South Wales, and there it was 22 acres: the holding party was innocent; but his title was invalid. Still more extensive erasures were discovered in a valuable property; the entire description had been changed and another substituted. At Richmond, two persons selected land adjoining each other: their grants had been exchanged, and he who was thus deprived of the most valuable, resorted to a chancery suit for its recovery. At Norfolk Plains a great many farms were located and occupied for a number of years. They commenced their measurements from opposite points, and each farm gradually approximated. When their lands were surveyed by the grant deeds, every owner found that his side-line advanced upon his neighbour, until at last the central proprietor saw his estate absorbed. In Oatlands, two properties were measured according to the common practice: the side-lines were guessed at; one cultivated, and the other sold his property; but when measured, the improver of his estate discovered that his homestead, and nearly one hundred acres of his land fell by description to his neighbour.

At Bagdad Rivulet, a surveyor measured eight grants adjoining. All the bearings given in the grants were mistaken: to adjust them, one would lose the back of his farm and take his neighbour’s, who would go on the next location and obtain a well cultivated farm.

To have confirmed all former titles would have been obviously unjust. In 1823, a location was given, but abandoned. Sorell advised a settler that came after to take the land, which he did. For fourteen years he lived there, and spent L3,000: the original owner re-appeared with a Brisbane grant, as a claimant of this property.

Colonel Arthur adopted Stephen’s recommendation in 1831, and announced in the Gazette, January following, its approval by the secretary of state.

All existing grants being invalid, the settlers depended on the justice of the crown to perfect their titles. The royal warrant of the king authorised the renunciation of claims founded on the informality, and deeds drawn in the king’s name, containing the same conditions as the governors’ grants, were offered at 5s. Now, however, the grants contained a true description of the land, and the name of the rightful possessor. The loose system of conveyancing, formerly expressed rather the intention than the act of transfer. Property had been subdivided, especially in the town: these parcels, however small, were now conveyed direct to the actual owner, subject to their proportion of quit rent. Possession and reputed ownership, were taken as a title. Those whose property was in excess, or less than their description, had their proportion of quit rents adjusted. The governor threatened with resumption lands obtained by exhibiting false pretensions to capital, or alienated before the period prescribed, or by collusive sheriff’s sales. Oblivion was granted to breaches of conditions, when not fraudulent, on payment of 6d. per acre fine. Commissioners, James Simpson and George Frankland, Esqrs., were appointed to carry out this admirable plan (1832).

An act, constituting the caveat board a court of equity and good conscience, was passed in 1835. The gentlemen who framed it held the board, “in the sacred light of a court,” although the concurrence of the governor was necessary to render its decisions valid. Commissioners were appointed to examine on oath. They were empowered to obtain a verdict from a jury in a special case: by appealing to the judge of the supreme court, they could submit a feigned issue for trial. In clear cases, however, after three months’ notice, they were permitted to adjudicate. The decisions of this board have usually satisfied the public: they have been nearly always confirmed, and have prevented boundless litigation.

Many surveyors were employed, who acted in the several districts (1838). The survey of 100 acres was effected for L5, of 2,000 for L20. The list of locations being published, the surveyor-general held a movable court, to identify and arrange the boundaries. It was part of his duty to mediate between the contending parties. These preliminaries being settled, the commissioners issued grants to such as made good their claim.

The proof of intention on the part of any officers, by custom entitled to grant occupation, has commonly barred the rights of the crown; but for this, a large amount of practical injustice must have been inflicted. Such was the only form in which grants could be distributed, when the country was just occupied, and the science of mensuration and accounts almost unknown.

To this, the case of the heir-at-law of Major Abbott is nearly a solitary exception. Being about to retire from office, Major Abbott applied for a reserve of 210 valuable acres at Launceston, and 3,000 acres elsewhere. On the recommendation of Sorell, then lieutenant-governor, who stated minutely the land desired, Sir Thomas Brisbane ordered the ground to be marked off as “crown reserves:” and Sorell, being just superseded, wrote on the order with a pencil the name of Abbott. Several persons at Launceston regretted the alienation of land useful to the township, and petitioned accordingly. Their views were favored by Arthur, and the claim of Abbott was supported by Sorell. Lord Bathurst ordered the grants in question to be given. Arthur, however, again appealed, and the decision in favour of Abbott was cancelled; but the 3,000 acres, reserved in the same terms and at the same time, were confirmed. Major Abbott through life maintained his right to the Launceston reserve, and devolved its prosecution on his son; for twenty years he contested his right with the agents of the crown. During the litigation its value has ranged from L2,000 to L8,000.

On an appeal to the secretary of state, Lord John Russell referred the claimant to trial by jury. He erected a house on the ground: this a chain gang was employed to destroy. He brought his action for trespass, which the law officers met by a demurrer. On his application for a deed of grant, a caveat was entered by Major Wentworth. Two of the commissioners decided in Abbott’s favour, and the third, Dr. Turnbull, against him. The usual course was to issue grants on the decision of the major part: this the governor refused, and the case was once more referred to the secretary of state. In 1849, Earl Grey declared that the governor had exercised a sound discretion in refusing the advice of the caveat board, and thus finally negatived the claim.

The intention of Sorell in favour of Major Abbott is clear: the provisional reserve of the land in his behalf is clear also. The views of Sir Thomas Brisbane are not so indisputable; but they probably changed on a remonstrance being offered by Arthur. The official answer to Sorell’s application was a description of the reserve solicited, unaccompanied with demur or question: it was understood by Sorell to mean approval; and, but for subsequent interference, a grant would have issued of course. Where no corruption can be suspected, actual or ultimate value is certainly no equitable objection to perfect a claim founded on the custom, and created by the authorities of the time.

Except the grants claimed under the Downing-street regulations, lands were bestowed at the discretion of the governor, to the extent of 2,650 acres. Many received still larger quantities at different times. The arrest of robbers, the cultivation of flax or hops, the capture or conciliation of the aborigines, and losses by fire, were occasions for the governor’s benevolence: other and less respectable causes were attributed, and scarcely require enumeration.

The large discretion of the governor was asserted by Sir George Murray. Mr. Hall, the editor of the Monitor, had been refused a grant by Darling, while others were freely indulged. He complained; but was told by the secretary of state (1829), that the governor could judge most correctly of an applicant, and that his decision would be usually held final.

The collection of quit-rents has baffled the agents of the crown: at first, the amount was too small to repay the trouble of collection, and for both colonies, in 1824, did not exceed L400 per annum.

A large number of grants in Van Diemen’s Land became liable in 1831, and notice was given that payment would be enforced. The settlers of Cornwall, led by Messrs. Bryan, Joseph Archer, and Gleadow, signed a petition to the crown, which complained that the exaction was partial and oppressive. The governor promised to forward the memorial, but stated that he had no ground to expect that the claim would be ever relaxed.

Notwithstanding, in 1834, Arthur proposed a composition. He offered a release at ten instead of twenty years’ purchase, if accepted within one year; without, however, allowing any set-off “for convict maintenance” equal, in some cases, to the whole sum. In 1836, he proposed to intercede with the crown to relinquish all claims up to that year, a bond being given by the debtor for the arrears, if required: these offers were but little successful.

To prevent a return to this topic, it may be added, that in 1841 Sir John Franklin offered to mediate for a remission of accumulations prior to 1835, provided all from that date were liquidated by yearly instalments. The total amount of quit-rent is estimated at L15,000 a-year, including the towns.

The collection of quit-rents is a curious instance of dodging the government to obtain, and the settlers to evade. Those debtors drawn into payment, could demand in equity that the indulgence granted to defaulters should be communicated to them: they were allowed a set-off in future payments. Those who redeemed their quit-rent were less favored.

The extinction of uncertain obligations would be a public boon, if only for their tendency to produce discontent and habits of evasion. The reservations of timber and material, and right of road-making, are hardly less impolitic. If the law should oblige a proprietor to accommodate his country, equity prescribes his fair indemnity. A functionary might cut through a settler’s estate in malevolence, and destroy the approaches to his dwellings, under terms without tangible limitation. In 1831, the government authorised a party to go through an orchard, planted on a Macquarie grant, to enlarge a road to the ferry at Risdon. The owner brought his action, and the assessors gave him a verdict. The lawyers pleaded the general invalidity of colonial titles, and thus the right of the crown to resume! In 1824, the roads were thirty feet: in 1827, they were increased to sixty; and the attempt was made to take from a location given under the old rule, the increased breadth stipulated by the new.

“A strange rumour,” said a colonial editor, “has reached us, that free grants of land will be conferred no more.” Lord Ripon’s regulations were published in London, January 20th, 1831. They were framed to obviate the theoretical and practical evils attributed to the easy acquisition of land; to terminate the prodigality of governors, and the frequent quarrels occasioned by their favoritism; and above all, to prevent laborers from becoming landholders, and the tendency of colonists to scatter over territories they can not cultivate. This important change, which excited alarm or exultation in the colonies, was only noticed in one London newspaper: with such indifference was a system regarded, destined to produce the most important national consequences.

Except reserves intended for public use, crown lands were offered for sale to the highest bidders, at the upset price of five shillings, and for the first time, to the usual reservation were added precious metals.

Arthur, who greatly disapproved the application of these rules to Van Diemen’s Land, where no tendency to dispersion had been displayed, and where free grants of land formed the basis of the convict system, manfully employed the last hours of patronage. The lands in the towns were rapidly disposed of, and all who could prefer a reasonable claim, were readily indulged. A few grants were bestowed by the special favor of Arthur: 205,000 acres were alienated chiefly in grants of extension, due by the terms of the original grants. Those whose expectations were satisfied, were not displeased with a measure which gave a definite value to estates, and when once the principle was established, the higher the price of crown lands, the greater the nominal value of their own.

A large number of persons, by neglect of the conditions, were liable to forfeiture; but among them were several favorite officers of the governor, or members of his own family. It was stated, without contradiction, that the surveyor-general sold his maximum grant for L1,700, when none of the conditions were fulfilled. An attorney-general not only parted with his property, but obtained afterwards a grant in extension for improvements he never made; and a gentleman, who had not visited the country, but was related to several persons of influence, obtained both a country and a town allotment.

Lord Ripon’s regulations disappointed many officers intending to settle in the Australian colonies; but against this a provision was made (August, 1831), which entitled them to a remission of from L150 to L300, according to rank. They were, however, to give bonds for residence on the land so obtained.

The ready sale of waste lands seemed to justify their valuation by the crown. In 1832, L44,000 were netted, at nearly twelve shillings per acre. This high average was occasioned by the sale of valuable reserves: those of Ross were sold, some portions at 29s. per acre. The governor complained that the sale of town allotments led to speculation and limited improvements; he therefore offered land on three years’ leases, except at Hobart Town, at the usual quit-rent, and exacted the promise to erect buildings of brick or stone. The absence of competition for the country allotments threatened to limit the proprietorship; but this precaution was forbidden by the secretary of state in 1835, when the system of granting lands at quit-rents finally terminated.

SECTION XII.

A work of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, professed to detect the errors in British colonisation, and to prescribe a new and more effective plan. It consisted in selling land at “a sufficient price” to combine labor and capital, to collect all the elements of civilisation, to prevent the dispersion of population, the premature possession of land by the workman, and speculation by jobbers. Thus a colony, on this model, was compared to a tree transplanted, the fibres of its roots undivided, and its branches unbroken.

For several years previous to this decisive change, the desire had been widely expressed to relieve the parent country by the emigration of paupers. Sir William Horton devoted great attention to the subject. He visited various districts most oppressed by population, and pointed out the methods available to an extensive removal. The Canada Company, which transacted much business with him while under secretary of state, had purchased and re-sold crown lands; and many laborers, who were transferred at their own expense to that country, rapidly improved their condition. A committee of the Commons sat upon the subject, and a bill was introduced by Mr. Horton himself, to authorise the parishes to mortgage their poor rates. It was once intended by the government to levy a tax on convict laborers, and to increase its amount on artizans, and thus raise a fund for emigration: this project, Arthur successfully resisted, and large permanent resources were discovered in the sale of lands. The parishes were not willing to incur the outlay, and it was opposed by many who were persuaded that the poverty of the laborer resulted from oppression. The intolerable degradation of the poor led to outrages and crimes. Large numbers were transported for agrarian offences, and many others had no refuge, but to obtain deliverance from starvation by less concerted violations of the law.

Agricultural laborers were driven from town to town; offered by auction at two-pence a day; harnessed to gravel carts; mocked by being sent with a barley straw fifteen miles a day; imprisoned in pits, and kept standing morning after morning in a public pound. Such were the scenes which induced Horton to lecture through the country on redundant population and emigration; and to call the attention of the parliament to the march of poverty, pauperism, tyranny, and crime.

The proposition of Sir William Horton led to various projects of private parties, in furtherance of colonisation. Grants of land were given to capitalists in proportion to the laborers they conveyed; whom they were permitted to engage as indented servants. The scheme chiefly important to Van Diemen’s Land, was the settlement of Swan River. Four gentlemen proposed to government, to convey 10,000 persons, for a grant equivalent. The minister thought the project too vast. Three of the four declined: Mr. Thomas Peel, a relative of Sir Robert Peel, still persevered. Many persons entrusted their capital to agents, who presented it, and obtained a title to possessions they never intended to cultivate.

By the regulations published at Downing-street (December 5th, 1828), the settlers were allowed 40 acres for every L3 of invested capital; 200 acres for every laborer conveyed. No convicts, or any other description of prisoners, were to be sent; but land granted, was to be forfeited, unless improved within twenty-one years. Thus, those who conveyed laborers, were met by competitors who had incurred no such expenses; and the conditions imposed neutralised each other. The settler who carried out labour, found his servant desert him to occupy land acquired by the capitalist who carried out money. Of three hundred persons embarked by Mr. Peel, in a few months not one remained to light his fire; but the recreant workmen were soon reduced to want. Many, under their broken indentures, claimed relief of Mr. Peel, whose flocks had been scattered, and his property destroyed by their desertion. He was glad to hide from their violence, while they were embarking for the neighbouring colonies. Respectable families were compelled to perform the most menial offices, and young women of education were reduced to rags. Contributions of clothing were collected and forwarded by the ladies of Cornwall. Many were brought to Van Diemen’s Land, as to a city of refuge: the population, from 4,000, decreased to 1,500, and the ruined landholders petitioned the government for a share of convict labour a boon which the elder colonies deprecated, and the minister refused (1835).

Swan River seemed to promise a desirable market, and the merchants dispatched vessels with provisions and cattle: Mr. Gellibrand speculated largely. On the whole, the returns were not equal to the outlay; and although sometimes great profits were realised, Van Diemen’s Land was injured by the trade.

Scarcely were the settlers of Western Australia landed, when another colony, Spencer’s Gulf, was projected. The authors of this scheme imputed serious detects to the plan of its immediate predecessor. The low price and extensive holdings, the want of combinable laborers, and the imperfect organisation of its social fabric, seemed to account for its disasters. A body of persons, concurring in the Wakefield system of colonisation, and comprehending many members of the House of Commons, formed themselves into an association, and applied to the government for the necessary powers. After considerable discussion, the minister declined their proposal, and the realisation of their hopes was deferred several years. The more active partisans of the scheme kept it before the public. An act passed the legislature on the 15th of August, 1834, empowering the crown to erect South Australia into a British province. Commissioners were appointed for the sale of land, and for the conveyance of emigrants. It was determined that the price should be sufficient to prevent laborers from buying land, and furnish the cost of their emigration. The company were authorised to borrow L50,000. If, at the expiration of ten years, the population should not reach 20,000, the control of the land was to revert to the crown. With a population of 50,000, they were to obtain the rights of political freedom, and no convict ship was to anchor on their shores. The upset price was at first L1, and, for a time, 12s. per acre. The intended colony was viewed with distrust by the elder settlements for the theoretical character of the plan, and its entire opposition to the then prevailing notions of penal labour. The advocates of the enterprise lost no occasion to denounce the social condition of Van Diemen’s Land and New South Wales; where, however, the scheme was pronounced insane, and destined to certain disorder and ultimate overthrow. The appearance of new speculators in the Australian colonies compensated them for these reproaches. In publishing their plans, the company had always referred to supplies within their vicinity, as an immediate and certain reserve. The Tasmanian merchants met them on the shore of the royal province. Sheep were sent over as the basis of their flocks; timber for their huts; and the various produce of rural wealth, originally brought at great cost from Europe. A long succession of adventurers raised the value of produce throughout the colonies; and individuals realised large profits in the trade; but when the arrivals from England ceased, the new colony was involved in whatever misfortunes its peculiar plan was supposed to avert. Many hundreds, driven out by poverty, settled in the penal colonies, and the property of Adelaide became unsaleable: the frail dwellings were deserted, and the land lay utterly waste. Of the Adelaide traders, scarcely a house escaped insolvency, and the loss was total. Those who remained turned their land to account: their flocks increased, and the discovery of the mines happily realised more than their early hopes. The lands sold by the company were freed from the mineral reservation.

An old gentleman, named Menge, formerly an attendant on a distinguished German geologist, was the discoverer of its mineral riches. He was employed by Mr. George F. Angus to select his special surveys. His occasional choice of rocks and barren soil excited ridicule and astonishment; but he was accustomed to say, “the wealth is below, not upon the ground.” He lived in the cleft of a rock at the junction of the Gawler and Para, near a plot of forty acres, almost surrounded with water, where he cultivated melons of every variety. He spoke many languages, and had travelled through Germany, Switzerland, and Iceland. A mineral collection he made, is in the University Museum, Edinburgh. His excursions in South Australia were intrepid, and extended far: he carried a wallet and a hammer, and subsisted during his wandering on gum. His conversation was visionary; and his predictions, at the time, but little regarded.

The coast of New Holland, opposite to Van Diemen’s Land, was almost neglected since the removal of the colony in 1803. Various reports were brought by whalers of its suitableness for sheep farming. Howell, Hume, and Batman had explored the country in 1824, and had acquired some knowledge of its quality. In 1827, an application was made by Messrs. J. T. Gellibrand and Batman to General Darling, for permission to land stock, to the amount of L5,000, in the neighbourhood of Western Port. This project failed; but in 1835, Mr. Batman, called the Australian Penn, acting for certain colonists, of whom a nephew of Arthur was one, proceeded to Port Phillip. Several Sydney blacks, under his care, had acquired the English language, and accompanied him thither. This important expedition embarked in a colonial vessel, and landed on the 26th May, on the shore of Port Phillip. The civilised blacks were now decked with native ornaments, and advanced towards the fires of the aborigines; but they had fled. They were, however, tracked by Batman’s company, who opened a friendly conference, and were perfectly understood. The natives displayed some apprehension, and intimated they had already experienced injury from the English. Batman gave them presents of tomahawks and trinkets, and conciliated their fullest confidence. Some time after, the party met the chief of another tribe, who had heard reports of the white man’s liberality: he conducted them towards the huts; but in their progress they were surprised by an hostile array of the natives. The blacks of Batman’s party called out to them, and amity was established. Batman took the spear of the chief, who carried his gun. He then proposed to live among them: the conditions were explained to their satisfaction. The treaty of Penn with the Indians was the model of the covenant with the tribe of Dutegaller. They conveyed a track of 600,000 acres, for blankets and other objects of native desire, and an annual payment of similar articles to the value of L200. This deed was signed, sealed, and delivered by the natives in due form.

The report of this expedition was presented to Arthur, who warmly concurred in the occupation, and approved the consideration of native rights; but observed that those rights had been disregarded in the recent colonisation of South Australia, and that Port Phillip was within the government of New South Wales. Arthur was desirous of making that territory dependent on Van Diemen’s Land. The minister favorably noticed the proposal; but in the meantime Governor Bourke asserted his claim, and declared the company intruders, and their bargains with the natives void.

Notwithstanding, the colony now opened was occupied by many adventurers. Their sheep were rapidly transferred, and the greater portion of the early inhabitants were settlers from Van Diemen’s Land. The settlement was suffered with reluctance. The theory of concentration had been adopted only a few months before; but, except by setting up a government on the spot, it was found that an illegal occupation of land could not be prevented. Governor Bourke wrote to the secretary of state, that whatever the general wisdom of concentration, an opposite course was necessary for pastoral wealth; and that to neglect nutritious food, would be to reject “the bounty of providence.” He proposed to sell the land in townships, and employ the proceeds in the public service.

Lord Glenelg confessed that the scheme of concentration was not of universal application: that Lord Ripon’s regulations were not everywhere desirable, and that it was proper to tolerate the ardour of private enterprise; to moderate its course, and gather up its fruits. The Dutegaller association was dissolved; but not until they had given an impulse to colonisation, more rapid than any example offered by history. This peaceable occupation, contrasted with the cruelties inflicted at Twofold Bay a whaling station, now rising into a province.

While these plans of colonisation were in progress, the social condition of the penal colonies was constantly discussed. To correct the evils admitted on the spot, and to obviate the dangers apprehended at home, it was determined by the ministers to promote the emigration of mechanics and females. One series of plans were proposed for New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, and with the same general results. The policy of government required the emigration of free mechanics.

The employment of prisoner artizans by the local government, was disapproved by the crown, and Colonel Arthur was instructed to assign them to masters, and contract for public works. In defending this measure, he had maintained that the high rate of wages would subvert the design of transportation: the employer would indulge the workmen, and to obtain their full strength supply the means of sensual gratification.

In 1831, a notice appeared inviting the opinions of the colonists on the subject of emigration. Lord Goderich solicited the assistance of the settlers in removing the population which the colonies might employ, and England spare. They were requested to state what amount of money they would engage to afford, and what class of servants they required. Such as contributed to the cost were promised a preferable claim to engage them. The notice was received in silence: no public meeting was held. The servants of the Van Diemen’s Land Company had generally deserted their employers; and in the colonies, the valuation of pauper laborers, compared with convicts, was not great; and although some extended their views beyond the moment, the chief object of most persons was to secure a fortune and be gone. The settlers dreaded the vicinity of small farmers, as fatal to the discipline of their men, and to the safety of their flocks.

This notice was on its way, when Lord Howick, on the behalf of the colonial-office, addressed the lords of the treasury, and proposed a loan of L10,000, to be repayed by the land fund. The proceeds of sales were then a matter of conjecture; but it was the opinion of the secretary of state, that these resources should be devoted to emigration, especially of females. He calculated that a growing population would more than compensate for the cost, by extending the basis of colonial revenue (1831). In this view their lordships concurred, and a commission was instantly appointed, to carry out the design.

During this emigration the supply of labor exceeded the demand, and a benevolent society was formed to succour the numerous poor. The governor advised that no laborers, except mechanics, should be sent, and four members of the legislative council protested against the outlay. They stated that the support of 10,000 prisoners, without expense to England, was a sufficient benefit for a colony to confer; that the “poor house prisoners,” and the “gaol prisoners,” were equally demoralised; and the first more insolent and uncontrollable. They contended that the expenditure of the land fund out of the colony was to complete the mischief resulting from the cessation of grants, “the calamities of which it was fearful to anticipate."

The colony was thought likely to afford a desirable home for Chelsea pensioners, who commuted their pensions for four years’ payment. Forty-six embarked in the Science, with Messrs. Backhouse and Walker, whose reports of their conduct explain their subsequent misfortunes. They were intemperate and thriftless, and passed the voyage in disorder. The women were nothing superior to their husbands. On their arrival, they expended their money, and sunk into misery. To this there were some exceptions, and here and there an old soldier may be found, whose property has risen in value, to a competence for his declining life. The land they were enabled to acquire was, however, generally too small in quantity to yield a living, from their unskilled and irregular toil. Their distress excited more discussion than sympathy. They requested the sheriff to call a meeting, to inform the crown of “their unspeakable sufferings.”

The home government resolved to advance L20 to married mechanics willing to emigrate to this colony. They gave the parties the amount, who were expected to sign a warrant of attorney for its repayment within two years. Many emigrated, but few paid: a Mr. John Hose, who did so, was noticed for his singular honesty; but the greater part evaded the liability with success. Females were expected to repay L8 towards their passage; but many were minors, and the proof of their hand-writing was not easy, and few regarded the obligation as just. The demand of this pledge contracted the choice of emigrants: many country girls refused to sign their names to a paper, promising a sum equal to the English wages of a year; or to enter into engagements, of which they could not see the end. The ordinary revenue was charged with payment and collection arising from this scheme; but the land fund eventually defrayed the loss.

A succession of vessels, with mechanics and females, anchored at Hobart Town: the Amelia Thompson at Launceston. A committee of ladies in London, of whom Mrs. Fry was the most distinguished, undertook the selection of the females. They were commended for their philanthropy and care in England: in the colonies, they received but little praise. Mr. Marshall, a considerable shipowner, was appointed agent. To fill his vessels, was said to be the main object of his efforts, and that he held a low scale of female morality would not be unacceptable. The statements of the colonial press were often undiscriminating and highly unjust: many valuable women were included in these immigrations; many were girls of tender years, whose chief fault was their ignorance.

The debarkation of these females occasioned scenes, more subjects of regret than of wonder. Thus, on the arrival of the Strathfieldsay (1834), the fair emigrants, 286, most of good character, were indiscreetly landed at high noon: 2,000 persons awaited them on the beach. Their feelings were outraged with ribaldry and insult: they were astounded at their reception, and many wept. The ladies of the colony protected and advanced them; and some, whose want drove them from their native country, remember the day with gratitude when they first pressed the soil of Tasmani,280 females were brought to the colony in three years, ending 1835; and rather more to New South Wales.

The emigrant rarely appears to advantage: the occupation of a new sphere, in which his position is uncertain, renders his manners awkward, and his expectations ridiculous. The disorderly conduct of many made their presence a burden, and their civil condition no great advantage to their masters. Yet, since it was necessary to labor or to starve, the greater portion chose the better alternative; and the women of decent habits, found that destiny for which nature designed them.

The extravagant expectations formed by many emigrants, fostered by reports of individual success, which when substantially true are still exaggerated by fancy, were commonly disappointed. The suspicious coolness of strangers; the high price of provisions; the comfortless dwellings, with their awkward fuel; the absence of conveniences, which are not valued until lost; and the memory of home, produced a depression of spirits, only overcome by reason or youth. But their complaints of after years, are the result of affectation and habit: they pretend to have sacrificed a lot, from which in reality they escaped; and forget that in the midst of those scenes they profess to regret, they often wanted a meal.

A curious instance occurred at an early time: a settler took a location order and provisions, and went out to commence his labors. He was disheartened by the obstruction of the forest: at his first stroke, the axe was shivered; he threw it down in despair, and returned home in the vessel that brought him out.

The emigrants were not, on the whole, inferior to other persons of their education and calling; and were often justified in resisting the tyrannical spirit and disposition to oppress, which the habits of colonial life do not extinguish. This emigration, amounting to 7,000 for both colonies, is an epoch to be remembered for its influence on their fate.

These events revolutionised the social state of the colonies. Free workmen and their families formed an intermediate class, whose interests were hostile to a penal government, and to bond labor in every form. The individual importance of employers consoled them for their political dependence; and the subservience of transportation to their material prosperity, reconciled them to the restrictions it imposed. The free workman found it an obstacle to his advancement: it depressed his wages and debased his position, but gave him nothing. If his industry raised him, he yet retained the sympathies of his early life: he remained distrustful of the rich, jealous of rank, and fond of the equality of human rights. Trial by jury, legislative assemblies, and official responsibility, found earnest advocates, where they had often been mere rallying points of personal discontent.

All this was foreseen by Arthur: when free laborers were intruded by the crown, the great bond of his system was broken.

SECTION XIII.

The increasing population of the Australian colonies led to important changes in their monetary institutions. Hitherto the stock employed in banking was supplied by the merchants, or invested by East Indian capitalists. These local relations were not without their advantages: they enabled the banks to extend accommodation beyond the ordinary usage of companies subject to more extensive and complicated interests.

The announcement of the “Leviathan,” as the Bank of Australasia was called, created the usual amount of discussion. The capital was desired by those who had occasion to borrow, and dreaded by such as were interested in lending. It was incorporated in 1835; and commenced operations the following year. By granting bills on London at par, the manager first drew largely on the current coin. Treasury bills were no longer the cheapest remittance, and the disposition to purchase them declined. The outcry of the local banks reached the legislative council, and it was proposed to make a treasury bill a legal tender. An act passed for the purpose, but was never called into force by proclamation. The resources of the English enabled them to vex and contract the sphere of the colonial establishments; but had treasury bills become a legal tender, they could have redeemed their own notes by their payment, and thus recovered the coin which found its way into the coffers of the stranger.

At Launceston, the quarrel between the Australasia and a local bank, afforded much sport to those not deeply interested. Of the Tamar Bank, 20 per cent. only had been paid on its capital, which was exceedingly small compared with its discounts and issues. Every morning, the agent of the London took a wheel-barrow to the Tamar bank, attended by an armed guard, and carried away the dollars in exchange for notes. The superior strength of the Australasia soon brought the contest to a crisis, and Mr. Gilles, the manager of the Tamar, shut up his books. He, however, first gave warning, that such must be his course, unless it was agreed to restore the dollar bags to the state before the war. To this it was replied that, perhaps, the Tamar had exceeded the just limits of its capital, and an offer made to discount a bill for its accommodation. In the end, time was given. The parties concerned were more frightened than hurt: no serious injury was intended.

In 1837, the Union Bank of Australia, with a capital of L1,000,000, divided the field. This institution was formed in England, under the auspices of Mr. Philip Oakden, a merchant, of Launceston. With such spirit was the project accepted, that the amount was subscribed in one day.

The chief objection to these banks was their tendency to create a class of absentees, whose revenue withdrawn from the colonies would add nothing to their welfare. To this it was replied, that the repayment was intended to be made from profits the colonies would divide with the London capitalist, which, except for his assistance, could not be obtained.

The last business address of Arthur to his council, expressed his antipathy to the London bank, and his hope that the monopoly attempted would not be successful. He asserted that the proprietary, an absentee body, had no interest but their own to regard, while the local banks were colonial in every sense. These were his views of finance, and they were characteristic of the time.

SECTION XIV.

“The glorious 23rd of May!” Such was the day and month of 1831, separated by those who witnessed its achievements to everlasting renown. The excitement of the campaign against the blacks (see vol. ii.) had absorbed political animosities, and brought all parties together; but by this time the popularity of the governor was spent. The struggle for parliamentary reform agitated Great Britain, and the colonists determined to attempt the recovery of their rights as Englishmen. So lively was the interest in the affairs of Europe, that the tri-color was mounted by more ardent politicians. The last wave of revolution, which had scattered thrones, rippled on these shores.

A meeting was called by the sheriff, and the principal speakers were the Gellibrands, Crombie, Cartwright, Abbott, F. Smith, Meredith, Lascelles, Gregson, Dunn, Jennings, Kemp, Hewitt, and Lowes: of these, none were so conspicuous as Mr. Thomas Horne (a relative of the great Horne Tooke), afterwards puisne judge, and who was described as the “honest barrister” by the admiring press. “If crushing,” said the learned civilian, “is to be brought into operation, no doubt I shall be crushed. Let them crush me, and they will associate my name with the record of this meeting, which history will preserve to the latest period of time.” The object of the movement was to bring under the royal notice the government of the colony, and to demand trial by jury, and a legislative assembly. The petition to the king was entrusted to the custody of Mr. Sams, who was proceeding to Great Britain. Whether it ever reached the throne was a matter of dispute: some said it had been committed to the deep, with much solemnity; others, that it had passed from the messenger to the hands of a merchant, who disregarded its fate. It obtained no reply.

The colony had just reason to complain at the time. The supreme court had been closed for many months: the business of the legislative council detained the judge and attorney-general from their proper functions, and for nearly two years no gaol delivery had occurred at Launceston. Two persons, father and son, charged with cattle-stealing, had been two years awaiting trial, when they were both acquitted. The evidence against them was of the slightest description; yet during their detention domestic calamities of all kinds had overtaken them.

The delay was still further extended by the issue of a new charter, and with the usual incaution of the secretary of state. This charter arrived 1831: it nominated Mr. Pedder chief justice, and Alexander Macduff Baxter, puisne judge. It made no provision for continuing process begun in the late court, and required colonial legislation to cure the defects of its details.

Mr. Baxter, the puisne judge elect, had been attorney-general of New South Wales. His relations with Darling had not been cordial, and he was disgraced in the eyes of the public by domestic differences: his wife was insane, and he himself was intemperate. Just before he left Sydney for Van Diemen’s Land, he was bound over to keep the peace, and was declared insolvent. On his arrival, the royal warrant for his induction had not reached the colony, and after some delay he returned to New South Wales, and thence to Great Britain, where he died. Mr. Baxter ascribed his ruin to his grant from the crown: he employed persons to look after his estate, and they conducted him to beggary.

The lieutenant-governor resolved, if possible, to exclude Baxter from an office which he could only dishonor, and passed an act, pronounced by the lawyers a piece of “doubtful and dangerous” legislation, by which the clause of the charter requiring two judges was expunged, thus constituting the court of one. The act of parliament, however, authorised the measure: the council had power to repeal or annul a patent, until the pleasure of the crown were known. The act was approved, and remains among the laws. Occasions might occur, when the course of justice would be arrested in a small community by requiring many officers to constitute a court.

The reformers were not disheartened by their failure: they assembled again the following year, at the request of the Hornes, the Gellibrands, and the Gregsons. The effort was unavailing. In 1834, it was renewed with still more earnestness: the former parties, reinforced by many important accessions, maintained the popular cause. Repeated disappointments excited some bitterness, which was expressed in strong terms. Mr. Thomas Horne reminded the home government that they would make “a dissatisfied and turbulent people, ready to use their power, and assert their rights, if necessary, by force of arms.” He advised the oblivion of minute grievances, and said, “were the angel Gabriel to propose one measure, and Satan another, if he considered Satan’s the most politic, he should have the honor of adopting it." But neither importunity nor threatenings prevailed.

These efforts were renewed in the following year; but in 1835 some of the chief advocates of a legislative assembly deprecated the penal institutions of the colony, and proposed that all convicts, on their arrival, should be set free: of this plan, Mr. R. L. Murray was a distinguished advocate.

A deputation from the meeting for free institutions, requested the intercession of the governor with the crown; but he replied, that if the grant of free institutions, and the discontinuance of penal coercion, were connected by one common advocacy, the interests of the colony, of the crown, and of philanthropy, would demand the most serious precaution. He maintained that all British rights were conceded, “excepting the elective franchise;” and quoted with more cleverness than dignity, their statements of colonial opulence, to show how little they had suffered by a former denial of their prayers.

Mr. Gellibrand, senior, was a person of intellectual tastes and lofty spirit. His early life had been spent among liberal politicians: he was a zealous advocate of freedom, but still more of knowledge and virtue.

Mr. Gellibrand, junior, was a lawyer of popular talents, whose practice as a barrister made office of little importance, and who, when discarded by Arthur, opposed him with incessant vigour. His eloquence was never exhausted, and his learning as a lawyer obtained him consideration in the court, which his boldness as a pleader often threw into jeopardy. Mr. Thomas Horne exhibited a fervour in the popular cause, worthy his kinsman. The rest were chiefly settlers, and patriots from resentment or conviction.

These meetings preserved the principles of constitutional freedom; and if they did not hasten its possession, reiterated its lessons and prepared for its enjoyment. Whatever temporary turmoil the meetings created, they were conservative of great interests, and deserve a grateful remembrance. These appeals to the British legislature were commonly accepted in silence: by the crown they were graciously received and forgotten. They had no perceptible influence on colonial policy, and only acquitted the settlers of indifference to rights, which can never be valued at too high a price.

The surplus revenue, accruing from year to year, suggested to the secretary of state the imposition of police, and gaol expenses on the colony. The non-official members of the council, except one, voted against the appropriation. They denied that the supposed advantages conferred by prisoner labor, justified a claim on the colonial funds for the support of a great national object; and they added this remarkable passage: “The influx of moral pollution has been perpetuated, and the colony doomed for ever to be the gaol of Great Britain, and destined never to rise to any rank among the British colonies." A dim fore-shadowing of that universal sentiment to which the constant attempts to lessen the profits of prisoner labor gave rise. The revenue was largely dependent on the consumption of liquors, and upon habits which generate crime and impose expenses on the public. It received an appropriate destination: funds contributed chiefly by drunkards for the repression of criminals. Such was the apology for exactions enormous, when compared with the population; a view not easily impugned, except that in such cases the interest of the government ceases to be hostile to vices which increase its wealth.

SECTION XV.

The case of Mr. William Bryan was before the public for many years. Mr. Bryan was an enterprising settler, and owned 11,000 acres and extensive herds, and was engaged in many speculations of public utility. He erected a valuable mill, and under his auspices a company was formed, which purchased a steam vessel. She was brought to the colony by Captain Alexander Wales: when, however, he arrived, the project was defeated by the altered position of Mr. Bryan’s affairs.

Samuel Arnold, a herdsman of Mr. Bryan, was convicted of cattle-stealing (1833), and sentenced to death. The police magistrate, Mr. Lyttleton, who committed him for trial, alleged against his master a culpable incaution, and Judge Montagu uttered a severe censure from the bench on the same account. Mr. Lyttleton, on going outside the court, addressed several gentlemen, of whom Mr. Dry was one. He remarked, that though the man was sentenced to die, he would do his utmost to save his life; and added, that another person ought to be standing in his stead. This was supposed to refer to Mr. Bryan, who deputed a young friend, Mr. Lewis, to demand an explanation, or appoint a meeting. Not only did Lyttleton decline this, but he transmitted an account to the government, and the attorney-general prosecuted Lewis for endeavouring to provoke a duel.

Mr. Bryan now appealed to the public, and tendered his resignation as a magistrate: he complained that he had been calumniated, and satisfaction refused. Arthur rejected his resignation, and dismissed him from the commission of the peace; and instantly recalled his assigned servants, twenty-two in number. Thus deprived of laborers, in the midst of harvest, his crops rotted on the ground; and his stock neglected, became diseased and were scattered. He was indebted to the sympathy of his neighbours, and to the extent of his wealth, that his property was not destroyed, and his credit wholly subverted. The effects of this measure were disastrous, and excited general distrust.

Bryan ascribed his treatment to an early difference with Arthur. The land he obtained on his arrival was less than he claimed, and he appealed successfully to the secretary of state; but he was told by a friend of the governor, that this was an offence not to be pardoned: no man could appeal against Arthur with final impunity.

Mr. Bryan was not altogether a martyr. He received upon the whole 4,000 acres of land; and in a letter to Arthur, he wrote: “Permit me to return you my sincere thanks (as much for the manner as the matter) of your very kind letter of the 11th instant. To the same principle of impartiality which you have evinced in my cause, I leave the increase of my grant, resting quite satisfied that if my exertions deserve it they will be rewarded." Mr. Bryan had then received 1,500 acres; he afterwards received 2,500.

Mr. Bryan instituted an action against Mr. Hortle, the agent of government in the recall of his servants. The issue depended greatly on the manner of trial whether by assessors, or a jury of twelve. The court possessed a discretion. The law officers asserted, and the judges allowed, that the colonists were disqualified by common interest to form an impartial judgment, and a jury was refused. Bryan then dropped the action, which he objected to entrust to assessors, directed perhaps by a member of the executive: for the same reason he withdrew his proceedings against the police magistrate for defamation of character. He returned to England: sought redress from the ministers, but in vain. On this case the opinion of impartial persons can hardly err. Yet the right of the governor to withdraw men, though not to be exercised in a wanton and destructive manner, was hardly to be disputed. The opinion of the English law officers of the crown favored that view, although it would be dangerous to take their version as decisive. “We,” say they, “are clearly of opinion, that under the 9th section of 9th Geo. iv. , governors can revoke assignment of a convict, of whose sentence it is not intended to grant any remission; and we think there is nothing against the apparent policy of the act which militates against that construction.”

For carrying a challenge to Mr. Lyttleton, Lewis was put on his trial. The conventional turpitude of the offence wholly depended on the provocation. A magistrate could not be covered by his privilege when standing in the street, and announcing his opinions to the loungers there; but Lyttleton, himself the sole witness, denied the words imputed, and his cross-examination was impeded by the court. Lewis read a written defence, and reproached the attorney-general with prosecuting an offence recently committed by himself: for this the accused was fined L10 by the judge, who advised him to retire and revise his notes. On resuming his speech, he was again stopped and fined. Complaining that the course required by his defence was unjustly obstructed, he became silent. A military jury found him guilty; and the judge condemned him to pay L150, and suffer an imprisonment of eighteen months.

The aspersion of the character of a magistrate by an imputation so serious, was the sole alleged justification of the challenge. The words attributed to the police magistrate, Lyttleton, he had denied; but, on his return home, became convinced by the testimony of Mr. Dry, sen., that he had sworn falsely. He communicated this impression to the attorney-general, but without result.

The conduct of Judge Montagu, on the trial of Lewis, was represented as harsh and captious; but was explained by subsequent disclosures. A clever barrister, who secretly advised the accused and framed his defence, went into the judge’s room, before the sitting of the court, and in conversing with Montagu intimated the very improper course Lewis intended to take. Montagu replied, he would certainly fine him. It was under these suspicions, that he began the trial: he was thrown off his guard, and the prosecution involved in an irreparable mistake. When the court sat to sentence the accused, the lawyer was there to urge the illegality of the conviction.

Lewis complained to the secretary of state, who referred his case to the law officers of the crown, who asserted “that it is an unwarrantable proceeding, on the part of a judge, to fine an accused party for saying anything which he may consider essential to his defence, provided it shall be consistent with public decorum.” The secretary of state directed compensation: this, a board estimated at L1,700. The governor was, however, desirous of depriving Lewis of the indemnity, and the legislative council resolved, seven to four, that the observations of Mr. Lewis were not within that qualification; and requested that, if the secretary of state persevered in his determination, he should pay the complainant from the land fund. Such resistance was obviously official, and without moral weight, and the money was eventually paid.

Several months after the departure of Mr. William Bryan for Great Britain, his nephew, Mr. Robert Bryan, and another, were charged with cattle-stealing. The constables who professed to watch the prisoners, alleged that they saw the animal in question driven homeward by the accused, and on the second day following discovered the skin thrown into the scrub. Witnesses contradicted the constables, who were all prisoners of the crown, in some material points. The young man was sentenced to death. The capital penalty was not inflicted; but it was the popular notion that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

The young man, Robert Bryan, was tried on two separate indictments, and such was the evidence, that many unprejudiced persons concurred in the verdict: yet the witnesses against him were open to suspicion. It was commonly asserted that he was sacrificed; if not by the contrivance, with the concurrence of the government.

The trial was reported by the Colonial Times. The editor, Mr Henry Melville, pointed out in strong language the suspicion of unfairness; the dependence of the jury; the presence of the governor at Launceston during the trial; the infamous character of certain of the witnesses; and the overruling a challenge of a juror by the prisoner. The remarks of Melville were carried beyond the tolerated bounds of public criticism; the attorney-general, Stephen, induced the court to issue an attachment. The defendant was required to admit the authorship: this being done, the judge whose conduct he had censured pronounced the sentence. To judge, condemn, and imprison, at once and by the party offended, included all that tyranny could ask. Any reference to the proceedings of a court, which the judge might choose to pronounce a libel, might consign to perpetual imprisonment. A similar case, at Newfoundland, was discussed in the House of Commons, and the ministers joined the opposition in severely reprehending the practice. The papers published the debate, and Arthur slowly obeyed the signal, and gave Melville his liberty.

Motions for attachment have not often disgraced the administration of justice: they are relics of barbarous times. This process was issued against Fawkner, the editor of the Launceston Advertiser, who escaped by an apology; and it was moved for by the attorney-general, Stephen, against Murray and Melville, for calling an affidavit of the solicitor-general to the effect that a fair trial could not be obtained in Bryan’s case with a colonial jury “an extraordinary document!” The judges dismissed the application, when Stephen remarked, that he “thanked God he despised the observations, as well as the scoundrel-like motives which influenced them.”

The intermixture of cattle of various owners, in the extensive forests belonging to the crown in the northern districts, afforded opportunities for plunder, and frequently occasioned disputes and quarrels. The herdsmen were often careless and dishonest, and their masters were liable to share the reproach of their mistakes or guilt. The marks distinguishing such property easily escaped the memory: it was often left to the choice of the magistrate to commit for felony, or resign the dispute to a civil tribunal.

The constabulary were mostly prisoners of the crown. Their office entitled them to an earlier attainment of their liberty than other convicts: the detection of a serious crime gave them claims for a still quicker liberation; and the desire of freedom prompted them to lay snares for persons suspected, and even to commit a crime that they might charge it on the innocent. Thus, they would sometimes slaughter a branded beast, and throw its skin on the premises of the selected victim. Such atrocious wickedness was certainly not common, but that it sometimes occurred is beyond all doubt.

Captain Serjeantson, of the 40th regiment, a gentleman connected with several opulent settlers, was murdered (1835). The family collected L500: to this the governor added L100 more, for the discovery of the murderer, who was found to be Hunt, a bushranger, afterwards shot by a small settler, and who dying confessed the crime. In this case, a constable, Drinkwater, proposed to another to earn their free pardons. The plan sketched was to deposit shot in the hut of a man at Campbell Town, who was suspected, resembling that extracted from the body of the deceased. A constable, invited as an accomplice, betrayed the project; not, however, until the proof of its existence was indisputable. The same constable had proposed to throw a sheep stolen from the flocks of Mr. Willis, on the premises of a man, “on whom there was a down.”

The intentional encouragement of perjury cannot be imputed to the government; but necessity induced a most perilous laxity of feeling. Thus on a trial, the judge not only stopped the case, but committed the prisoner policemen for perjury: these persons were discharged by the attorney-general, and established again as constables. Their oaths had already produced several capital convictions, and they became qualified to accuse and convict the most upright men. The ignorant police agents considered that the successful prosecution of any person, regarded by their officers with hatred, would entitle them to benefits; and even the prisoners in service discriminated between those whom they might accuse with impunity, and such as were protected by their connections. Nor was this all: in the height of political excitement, a prisoner was arrested in the neighbourhood of Mr. Gregson’s dwelling, who avowed his intention to assassinate that gentleman, in the expectation of a reward.

The affair of Mr. Bryan increased the anxiety of the colony to obtain trial by jury, independent of the court and the influence of the executive. By the custom of England, this privilege could only be suspended by martial law, when the ordinary courts were closed: wherever the authority of the crown was recognised, the accused was entitled to trial by his peers. Nothing could be more alien from the habits of Englishmen, than to lodge the functions of grand jury in the hands of an officer of the crown, or commit life or liberty to the verdict of a military jury. A paramount necessity required the practice for a time; but a change was delayed, by the hesitation of the government, long after the colonies contained a body of freemen.

The decision of Judge Forbes, instanced in a former page, which determined that the common law right remained with the session of magistrates, had been acted on for a time. Emancipists sat on these juries, and exulted in the privilege. Their press, in publishing the list, distinguished the members of their body by affixing stars () to their names. The act of parliament (1828) set aside the interpretation of the judge; but when it took away the common law right, it gave power to the crown to authorise the institution of juries, at the discretion of colonial legislatures. Thus an ordinance entitling to trial by jury in civil cases, was established in New South Wales (1829). The chief justice strongly favored the eligibility of emancipists, who were three times more numerous than the immigrant population. The non-official members of the council were generally opposed to their admission; but the measure was carried by ten against five. Thus, although the trial of criminal causes still remained with the military, the courts could not withdraw civil wrongs from the verdict of civilians. By this act the officers of government were liable to some responsibility, and in several instances were cast in damages, notwithstanding the efforts of the crown to defend them.

While civil jurors were confined to civil issues, they sat in the box occupied at other times by the military jury. An officer had amused his leisure, while sitting on a trial, by tracing caricatures of the civil jurors, and writing libels on the benches. Thus insulted, they appealed to the court for protection. The judge was unwilling to interfere; but being pressed, remarked, that were the authorship traced to a military juror, he would close his court rather than intrust to such hands the administration of justice (1830).

The hostility of the opulent emigrants to the eligibility of emancipists was intense and lasting. This was still more active when the trial of criminal issues passed into their hands (1833). They asserted that the criminal at the bar was too literally tried by his peers, and that scenes disgraceful to public justice were enacted in the retiring room. It required all the authority of the court to repress antipathies so openly avowed. The rancour excited by this question is scarcely credible: a gentleman addressed the judge from the box before he was sworn, and asked if he was expected to deliver a verdict with twice convicted felons? Appearances of partiality and corruption were quoted to prove the pernicious effect of their admission. The magistrates, usually hostile to the measure, returned as fit and proper persons, those whom they knew would disgrace the box. Some flagrant cases were exhibited as specimens of the whole: a juror, out on bail for horse-stealing, resolutely acquitted another charged with cattle-stealing, and was convicted himself. Thus, it was said, returns to the summons of jurors, in one instance, was “hanged;” in another, “transported for life.”

These were certainly blemishes, but they were magnified into radical and incurable defects (1835). The complaints of the gentry, induced Governor Bourke to take the opinion of the judges and the law officers of the crown: on the whole, they were fully satisfied with the result of the law. It was remarked by a judge, that the accused would sometimes choose a military jury, or a jury of twelve, according to the nature of the offence: in cases of aggravated violence they often preferred a military jury, but where conflicting testimony was likely to occur, they preferred the greater number, only as less likely to agree. Forbes stated that the chief difficulty was confining the juries to the question of fact; but their verdicts had generally satisfied him. It was the opinion of the judges, save Mr. Justice Burton, that trial by jury had been too long deferred, and that benefit would result from its unqualified adoption.

In Van Diemen’s Land, an ordinance was passed (1830), permitting the judge to allow a jury in civil cases, whenever it was desired by either party. The names were twenty-four: from these both parties struck out six, and the remaining twelve were the jury. The first trial occurred 1830 (Butler v. Bent), in an action for libel, contained in a series of letters written, or acknowledged, by Wells, an emancipist, and signed “Simon Stukely.” They were afterwards collected into a volume. The chief persons in the colony were described with considerable spirit, but with the usual injustice of anonymous satire.

The danger to the fortunes of the people was more severely felt than the peril of their liberty and lives. Thus a public meeting, demanding trial by jury, was held in 1834: an address was presented to Arthur by a deputation. In urging the amendment of the law, they referred to the extraordinary powers possessed by the government. Arthur, in reply, professed a liberal desire to gratify their wishes; but denied that he possessed extraordinary powers, or that “they required to be watched with more than usual jealously.” He had, however, deferred the establishment of British laws to the last possible moment, and certainly possessed great powers; on the whole, more capable of perversion than any ever known in a British colony.

The attorney-general, Alfred Stephen, was desirous of substituting for the assessors a jury of seven, instead of twelve. His project was opposed by Mr. Kemp, and indeed very generally disapproved. It was argued, that the chances of influence multiply as the number of jurors are decreased, and that the national practice was the only safe guide. The amount of discussion that attended the dispute was prodigious: pamphlets, and letters without end. The prejudice of the people was, however, on the right side: although there is nothing sacred in an ancient number, the retrenchment must have increased the facility of corruption. The law, as it ultimately passed, removed the danger, by giving either party a right to demand a jury; and to the party against whom the application was made, a choice between a petty and special jury; but three-fourths were taken as the whole, after six hours deliberation.

This act was framed in virtue of an order of council by the king in 1830. It provided that in criminal prosecutions where the governor, or any inferior officer, civil or military, could be interested in the result of a trial, a jury taken from the special jury list should try the issue.

To Arthur the colonists were not indebted: the secretary of state had, long before, announced the determination of the government in favour of the measure. It was not carried out until nearly four years after its authorisation. The removal from the colony of the stigma of military juries, was delayed until 1840, when the trial of crimes and misdemeanours was entrusted to the hands of the inhabitants, and the grand bulwark of public and private freedom raised in Tasmania.

The convictions for perjury were not numerous: the whole system partook of the unsoundness of its elements, and the inhabitants were indebted for their safety to those principles of humanity, which, in the absence of interest and passion, regulated the measures of the government, and restrained its agents from atrocious conspiracies.

SECTION XVI.

The True Colonist newspaper was published daily during 1835: the editor, Mr. Gilbert Robertson, filled its columns with strictures on government, and in a style which might be termed heroic, if inspired by truth. The rashness of his imputations was never surpassed. He heaped on the governor, and the members of his administration, charges of misdemeanour and felony. One day he denounced them at the police-office, and the next printed his accusations verbatim. He libelled the governor (whom he accused of altering a deed after its enrolment) in a paper, headed “a fearful discovery;” and declared him not less deserving than others of a capital conviction. Robertson charged an overseer of Arthur with feloniously receiving hay for the governor’s use, and with his connivance. His nephews, Captains Forster and Montagu, were each accused of a felonious appropriation of property belonging to the crown. For these imputations, Robertson suffered fine and imprisonment; in part remitted by the clemency of Arthur. Such charges were a buckler to the governor against the current scandal of the time. They were transmitted to the colonial-office: they destroyed the moral weight of the press, and cast suspicion on just complaints, yet emanating from a community which tolerated such extravagance.

It is not to be inferred that the opponents of Arthur’s government, generally sanctioned these excesses. The violence of periodical writings resulted partly from the paucity of topics, and was mainly a necessity of trade. The limited field of discussion huddled all disputes into a squabble. The writers could not forget the names of their antagonists: they espoused with vehement zeal the trivial quarrels of this or that functionary; officers, who were dismissed, supplied anecdotes of those left behind, which were worked up in every form. The want of ideas and information would have withdrawn many writers from the combat, had they not possessed CAPITALS, exclamations (!!!!), and dashes officered by epithets of horror, as an army of reserve. These attempts to impart energy to weakness, and terror to insignificance, gave to the articles of many old newspapers the aspect of auction bills, rather than political disquisitions.

The reader of a better era may fancy this description shaded; but the writer, in preparing this work, has explored many a volume, and shudders at the memory of his toils: he would not assign them to his worst enemy. Such were not all: there were writers on either side, whose opposition was discriminating, and who enlightened the understanding without debasing the taste. The press was the more licentious, because nothing else was free; but it raised a barrier against official corruption. Men of integrity were annoyed, but rarely injured. It intimidated the corrupt, and protected the oppressed. Considered in detail it was often detestable; but it prevented mischief more serious and lasting.

These contentions embittered colonial life: they were daily renewed. The topics they embraced were rarely interesting beyond the moment: they filled the ephemeral publications of the day, and they now lie entombed in those repositories of the literary dead.

From 1831 to the termination of Arthur’s government, the circulation of newspapers prodigiously increased: the improvement of the postal establishment facilitated their spread. Settlers, who delighted in their controversies, or dreaded their censure, subscribed to them all. With a few honorable exceptions they rivalled each other in recklessness of statement and roughness of diction. No lover of truth will accept their testimony, or transmit their praises. They were often what they were denominated by the chief justice “a moral guillotine.”

The spirit of contention was promoted by the peculiar fabric of society. The great majority of the colonists were below the period of human life, when the temper becomes cautious and the passions calm. Its narrow sphere magnified their temporary importance. Every man might claim, or forfeit benefits the government could bestow, and thus multitudes had personal grievances, or unsatisfied expectations. The hostilities of the day were almost invariably associated with some sense of individual wrong. A grant of land desired by one, was given to another; a valuable servant was denied on some public pretence, and then assigned to a favored applicant. One found his mercantile tenders always rejected, while another, by some unintelligible process, engrossed the custom of the crown. A youthful stranger was invested with the honors of a justice, when colonists of long standing were left undistinguished. The infractions of rule involved one master in public disgrace; another, was a licensed transgressor. Such was the complaint, which might be easily illustrated by examples; but they are such as a knowledge of mankind will amply explain, and are inevitable when the form of government is arbitrary, and where its functions enter into all the details of private life.

This was felt towards the close of Arthur’s administration, and many, not prone to party strife, were anxious for its termination. The meetings to petition were more frequent, and assumed a more general character. As the causes of dissension became better understood, the patronage of the governor ceased to be considerable, and no colonist was a lover of unprofitable despotism. These sentiments prevailed in both penal colonies.

A “political association” was formed in Van Diemen’s Land: a standing council was organised, under the auspices of certain leading politicians, who discussed the measures deemed necessary to amend their social and political condition. Mr. Thomas Horne, the secretary of this body, opened a correspondence with the governor, and endeavoured to direct his attention to its complaints. Arthur declined recognising his credentials, without an express sanction from the crown. The association, however, carried on its debates. The council deliberated in public: the members were assembled in the body of the hall, and spectators were admitted to the gallery. Their proceedings were reported in the newspapers, but with party coloring. By Dr. Ross they were turned into bitter ridicule: his remarks were retorted with cruelty and insult. A storm collected around him he could not disperse, and he laid down his pen soon after, with expressions of ill-concealed anguish.

SECTION XVII.

The recall of Arthur, long anticipated by his enemies, at length arrived. Some months before, he had been informed by the secretary of state, that “having continued him in his government for the unusual period of twelve years, the crown intended to name his successor.” On the recommendation of Mr. Huskisson, the duration of an ordinary government was limited to six years: special reasons withdrew Van Diemen’s Land from the operation of this rule.

The ministerial changes at the seat of empire left Arthur’s influence unimpaired. The variations of national policy rarely reached his sphere. Unwelcome orders he managed to modify or evade. The difficult nature of his duties, the distance of his government from supervision, and the weakness of the free population, enabled him to assume and maintain for many years a discretion all but unlimited. The state of the colony on his arrival has been already noticed. The measures he adopted to coerce and control the convict population, and to subdue the aborigines, will be found in the second volume of this History. He repressed the outrages of the lawless, and restored comparative tranquillity. Under his auspices the chief town, which he found consisting of a few frail dwellings, assumed the aspect of a commercial city. Many, he received in chains, were established in social happiness: many immigrants, who arrived with slender resources, had risen to opulence.

A series of forty-seven statistical tables, prepared by the colonial secretary, his nephew, exhibit a progress then almost unexampled. In 1836, the revenue had increased from L16,866 to L106,639; the imports from L62,000 to L583,646; the exports from L14,500 to L320,679; mills from 5 to 47; colonial vessels from 1 to 71; churches from 4 to 18: the population had risen from 12,000 to 40,000; and every branch of public and private enterprise exhibited the same general aspect.

It would be absurd to ascribe to Arthur even the main credit of these results: they were the effect of that spirit of industry which ever characterises the native of Great Britain, and which nothing can wholly extinguish. Nor was this prosperity without alloy. The unproductive improvement encouraged, was sometimes unhealthy. The settlers were deeply involved: the valuation of property was raised beyond reasonable calculation. The pleasing delusion was cherished by the members of the government, whose official and private interests concurred to dupe them. Happy were they who sold. Arthur left many who, acquiring his favour by the extent of their outlay, and the vigour of their enterprise, were laden with debts from which they never recovered, and a prey to perpetual solicitude.

The great demand for sheep and cattle, created by the establishment of new colonies, gave a temporary respite: flocks were sold at L2 per head, and were purchased in large quantities. These améliorations were only transient, and the wide regions open to adventure lessened the worth of those properties which had been valued by the farms of Great Britain, not the unpeopled wilds of New Holland.

A just estimate of Arthur’s administration, must include all the peculiarities of his position, and the complicated interests he held in trust, whether they relate to the imperial government, the free, or the bond. The measures best for the colony were not always compatible with the design of its establishment. Nor must we forget that, in surveying the past we have lights which rarely attend the present; that much which experience may amend, it is not possible for wisdom to foresee.

The primary object of the crown in colonising this island, was accepted by this governor as the chief aim of his policy. The settlement of free men he considered but subsidiary to the control and reform of the transported offender: their claims, their duties, and their political rights were, in his view, determined by their peculiar position. They were auxiliaries hired by royal bounties, to co-operate with the great machinery of punishment and reformation. As the representative of the crown, he stood off from the colonists in their sympathies and ultimate views. Employed not to build up a free community of Englishmen, but to hold in check the criminality of an empire, with him the settlement was an institution requisite to the effective execution of penal laws. Such he found it: such he desired to mould its growth, and to prolong its destination. Thus, except in the capacity of employers, he regretted the arrival of free men, and warned the ministers of the crown, that by their encouragement of emigration, they were destroying the value of bond labor, the dependence of the settlers, and the adaptation of the island for the purposes of a prison.

Thus, in his official correspondence with colonists on subjects of a political nature, Arthur always avowed hostility to liberal ideas, and scoffed at their solicitude for the common rights of English people. While the opposition could avail, he resisted the liberty of the press, trial by jury, and open discussion of legislative measures. His remarks were often in a tone austere and reproving; nor did he think himself obliged to preserve that dignified complaisance which softens the differences of political life. The settlers were expected to stay at home, to keep their servants in custody, to denounce their infractions of penal rule, and as the “materials of prison discipline,” (so they were denominated) to carry out a judicial sentence. They knew, before they came, they must sacrifice British rights, and with the political or social influence of transportation, beyond their own fences, they had no concern.

As an officer of the army, the profession of Arthur was not unfavorable to the main purpose he avowed: the process he conducted was, of necessity, harsh and imperative. In the selection of instruments, he preferred military men: they were without colonial scruples, and when the government was unconcerned, perhaps, without partiality. They were deficient in legal knowledge, and as magistrates sometimes overlooked the material facts; but they despised the reproaches of the press, and the censures of civilians.

In the course of his administration, Arthur had most places at his temporary disposal: he filled them, wherever possible, with his friends; and he left his nephews in the highest appointments within their professional capacity. Arthur drew out a minute detail of official subordination: the duties prescribed for his officers were defined with labored exactness, and the reins of control met in his hands. Everything was referred to himself, and his instructions were definite, and generally irrevocable. Many persons appointed by the crown were dismissed, or thrown off, by his contrivance. Accident placed many offices in his provisional gift. Baxter, a judge elect; Gellibrand, an attorney-general; Ferreday, a sheriff; Thomas, a treasurer; Burnett, a colonial secretary; O’Ferrall, a collector of customs; and many in lower station, relinquished or lost their appointments, by the determination of his inflexible and unflinching will. The forfeiture was sometimes obviously just; but it was a maxim of his government to fill the departments with persons who knew no patronage except his own. Among them were candidates for the same gifts, who looked for fortunes beyond the limits of their duties: they cultivated farms; became competitors for prisoner labor; and speculators in commerce. The supreme court and the newspapers were often occupied by their recriminations: sometimes they exchanged challenges, and sometimes writs. The colonists in opposition saw, not without some gratification, dissensions which seemed to weaken the common enemy; and the press was often enriched by the malice of official pens. Many were, however, too wise to quarrel: their quiet industry enabled them to combine their public and private employments, without scandal, and with success. They were, indeed, accused of peculation; but specific charges were generally rebutted, and can now only be noticed as a rumour, and dismissed as detraction.

The officers trained under Arthur acquired his tact, and imbibed his spirit: the least deemed himself something superior to the richest trader, or the most enterprising colonist. The sub-divisions among themselves were minute and rigorously enforced. They were, however, subject to vicissitudes. Those who lost their appointments furnished the material of libels: reported the peculations and duplicity of their late colleagues, and often became distinguished for their patriotism.

The patronage permitted to Arthur was enormous: to a large extent he was the almoner of the crown. Thus disaffection became highly penal: a quarrel with a magistrate, or a friendly intercourse with persons under a ban, exposed the delinquent to serious pecuniary loss. These considerations were avowed. The dread of injury made the timid servile, and corrupted private intercourse. A secret influence pervaded every rank: society was embittered by suspicions and the dread of denunciation; and had not the growth of population decreased the comparative power of the government, or had its original plan been perpetuated, it must have formed a community of slanderers and slaves. The intentions of the governor, however just, could not save him from the falsehood of spies, and thus the perpetration of wrong. It was early announced that opponents would be “crushed.” The extent of the “crushing system” was greatly exaggerated, and even the course of good government was commonly ascribed by the sufferer to official enmity and avarice.

The industry of Colonel Arthur was constant: his attention to the details of his government, and his perseverance as a despatch writer were universally admitted: a large proportion of his time he spent in his office, and toiled with an assiduity which would have been fatal to ordinary men. It was commonly stated that he was not very accessible; but he willingly heard those whose education and habits qualified them to suggest. Persons of every rank were admitted to an audience on a slight pretence. He was quick in estimating the characters and capacities of all who approached him.

The executive council was useful to Arthur, without obstructing his measures. When he resolved on a project, he would nominate a board, and obtain its sanction. When his private views were opposed to his instructions he affected impartiality, and seemed to yield rather than to guide. These artifices were well understood; but the colony often approved the object, and admired the ingenuity of its execution. A new colonial minister, in the hurry of his office, gladly surrendered to the governor’s judgment a question often beyond his comprehension, and which to resist it was necessary to understand. Thus it was ordered to execute public works by contract instead of the gangs; to levy a tax on convict labor; to retain men seven years in chains. Boards, or commissions, which gave him the aspect of a mediator or judge, advised him to postpone and quash the disagreeable order or restriction. Thus during his government his influence was paramount, and inferior functionaries were satellites who obeyed his impulse, or were driven from their spheres.

The chief justice alone could pretend to independence: by his seat in both councils he possessed a voice in the enactment and administration of the laws a subject of continual suspicion and complaint, and really dangerous whenever the government was a party. The chief justice ultimately resigned his seat in the executive council (1835). The secretary of state had declared in parliament that legislative and executive offices were incompatible with the proper functions of a judge.

The great works of Arthur were attributed by his opponents to sinister motives: those most frequently mentioned were the new wharf at Hobart Town, the road to Richmond, and the Bridgewater causeway. Arthur benefited by his fore-knowledge. The imputations of personal injustice or corruption were unfounded: what he gained, others did not lose, except by the common risks of a sale. Thus the property of the Rev. Robert Knopwood, whom he was said to defraud, was several times in the market: it was offered by advertisement many years before: its future appropriation to commerce was predicted, and was described to enhance its price. It was offered by Mr. Knopwood to Mrs. Hodgson for L800: it was purchased by Mr. H. Jennings, a nephew of Mr. Gellibrand, senior, without reference to Arthur; and was finally sold to his agent at a small advance. The new wharf rendered the purchase highly advantageous; but there was neither deceit nor oppression.

The great work he began at Bridgewater, where a magnificent causeway forms the abutment of a bridge which connects both banks of the Derwent, was a task of many years: many thousand pounds in value lie buried. Arthur had estates in its vicinity. The other charges of corruption are of a similar nature, even less substantial than these.

But although many of his works will perpetuate his memory while the country lasts, they could only be justified by their connexion with penal arrangements. The discipline prescribed did not admit of rapid movement or wide distribution. Huts were necessary for the convicts, houses for their officers, and various stores; and it was only on extensive excavations that labor could be inspected with success. The waste of expenditure was rather apparent than real. The objects contemplated were not colonial; and thus, if the local obligation is lessened, the ground of complaint is diminished.

During his government, Arthur became wealthy: his estates were numerous, and their sale realised a large amount. That he acquired them improperly is not even capable of suspicion; that he applied clandestinely the means afforded by his office to improve them, is equally destitute of evidence. Nor is it easy to see how a community can be injured by the outlay of capital acquired in its service, or the interest of its officers in the soil. The moral weight of government was compromised far more by the air of mystery which veiled, than the corruptions which debased it. The outcries raised against the disposal of land in special instances, were often misdirected: many deviations from strict impartiality were prescribed by the secretary of state, whose discretion was unlimited by regulations. Arthur was silent, and his character suffered: he despised reproach, which notwithstanding impaired his influence for good. Just before his recall, Mr. William Bryan made statements before the Commons of mis-appropriation of crown lands, which had been the text of colonial articles without number, when a secretary from the colonial-office stated that the more serious were unfounded; that many were ministerial acts; and the whole series were reduced to comparative nothingness. While Arthur had the power, he was not sparing in its use: he endowed his friends. Nor is it incredible, that a private service to himself detracted nothing from weight of public obligation.

Arthur was no fickle or hesitating patron, and the qualities he approved are nearly allied to virtue: he appreciated humanity, sobriety, industrious habits, and religious decorum. Respectable men, who did not question or cross his path, might usually calculate on his complaisance. But those who reckoned up his estates; numbered the benefits conferred on his friends; estimated the cost of his government; or criticised his public works; found that he did not fear, although he detested them. The imperial officers cared not in what direction his patronage was turned, and their nominees experienced and praised his generous discretion.

The impressions of devout men were usually favorable to Arthur: he told them his objects and trials with apparent humility and devotion. He listened with deep attention to their plans of usefulness, and talked, especially of the prisoners, in strains of christian compassion. His sanction was given to every benevolent scheme, and he gathered around him a very large proportion of those persons who care more for the circulation of religious knowledge than the civil enfranchisement of mankind. The ready countenance of their labors lessened, in their view, his civil faults. Nor can it be denied, that the decorous habits of the governor confirmed his religious pretensions. Wherever he appeared, ribaldry and drunkenness vanished. The open licentiousness of public officers he did not tolerate, except the offenders were distinguished by official cleverness.

Addresses from all denominations of Christians expressed their admiration of his religious sympathies and his moral worth; and in the most bitter outburst of party spirit, his domestic character was never assailed. The testimony of Messrs. Backhouse and Walker, members of the Society of Friends, would generally be adopted by most persons of their class: “Our first interview with Colonel Arthur gave us a favorable impression of his character as a governor and a christian, which further acquaintance with him strongly confirmed. He took great interest in the temporal and spiritual prosperity of the colonists, and the reformation of the prisoner population, as well as in the welfare of the black inhabitants."

Messrs. Backhouse and Walker were authorised by the Society of Friends, and sent on a religious mission to these colonies: they brought a letter of introduction from the secretary of state, Lord Goderich, requesting the governor to forward their benevolent object.

The more violent opponents of Arthur, connected with the press, afterwards retracted their opinions; but their statements must be read with equal caution, whether they censure or praise.

A collection was made by Arthur’s friends in token of their regard, supposed to exceed L1,000 in value. It, however, indicated rather their liberality than their number: individual contributions were not limited. The addresses were signed by many who were conciliated by his moral sentiments, but disapproved of his government; they however, seemed to justify the ministerial applause which crowned his administration. Sir George Grey referred to these tokens of esteem, as evidence of popularity, and the contentment of the people.

Arthur held his last levee on the afternoon of his departure: several hundreds were present, collected from all parts of his government. He proceeded with the chief officers, civil and military, to the beach, where the 21st Fusileers awaited him: multitudes attended his progress; the wharf was crowded with spectators; a hundred boats surrounded the government barge, and followed him to the ship. The vessels in the harbour were decorated, and his numerous friends gave the usual demonstrations of favour. In these feelings many did not participate: some followed him with hisses and groans; others illuminated their houses in token of joy. Some fell into the hands of the police, overpowered by their excessive gladness. Having gone through the ceremony of embarkation he returned to his office, and spent the night in completing his last labors. Adverse winds detained the vessel, and he passed the Sabbath in sight of that country where his name can never be forgotten; and where monuments more durable than brass, formed by his care, will remain to the end of time.

The manners of Arthur were formal; his tastes moral; his temper vindictive. He approved the right, and usually followed it; but his resolution once taken, he did not hesitate. He devoted all who opposed him: and those whom he could not conciliate, if possible, he bore down. The sentiment of religion, however, did sometimes triumph over his antipathies. His contest with Mr. Gellibrand, the barrister, continued many years; but they met at the sacrament shortly before their final separation. Arthur approached the seat where Gellibrand was sitting, and offered his hand. This being misunderstood, a prayer-book was tendered him: he then explained, that before they joined in the solemnity which had brought them there, he was anxious for reconciliation.

Such only who know little of man, and of those conflicting passions which attain alternate ascendancy in the human breast, will survey with distrust a scene like this. In the presence of the Almighty the loftiest mind may bend without meanness, and recognise the moral grandeur of a forgiving spirit.

A few months after the departure of Arthur, Mr. Joseph Tice Gellibrand lost his life. He visited Port Phillip, a place which long engaged his thoughts: in company with Mr. Hesse, a barrister, he set out to explore the interior; they missed their way. The guide who attended them was convinced of danger: he could not prevail on them to change their route, and he returned alone. Their long absence occasioned anxiety, and parties of their friends attempted to track them: they found that when in company with the guide they had crossed the Byron, instead of the Leigh, their intended course; they then travelled on about fifteen miles by the river side, and over a plain, and entered a wood soon impervious to horsemen: then their track was lost. For several years, efforts were made to solve the mystery of their fate. In 1844, the natives directed Mr. Allen, a gentleman of credit, to a spot where they stated a white man had been murdered: there he discovered human bones, but no evidence by which identity could be established. Beyond this, nothing certain is known.

On his return to Great Britain, Arthur was received with favour by the ministers. He was created a knight, and appointed governor of Upper Canada: afterwards, he obtained a similar office in India.

Sir George Arthur cannot be withdrawn from the rank of eminent functionaries; and his administration, on the whole, is entitled to more than respectful remembrance.