SECTION I.
Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot, Bart.,
succeeded Sir John Franklin, August 21st, 1843.
His short and troubled administration, although crowded
with incident, presents few events of permanent interest.
Charged with the development of a gigantic scheme of
penal discipline, founded on erroneous data, and imperfectly
sustained by material resources, he was involved in
the discredit of its failure. The opposition
of the colony to his measures he too readily resented
as disrespectful to himself, and thus a long and useful
public life was closed in sadness.
Sir Eardley Wilmot received his appointment
from Lord Stanley, whose political leadership he followed
in his secession from the whigs, occasioned by the
reduction of the Irish church. During successive
parliaments he represented Warwickshire, and for twenty
years was chairman of the quarter sessions of that
county, in England a post of some consequence.
He inclined rather to the liberal than the tory section
of the house, and supported most measures favorable
to civil and religious freedom. On the question
of negro slavery he was a coadjutor of the decided
abolitionists, and on his motion apprenticeship, a
milder form of slavery, was finally terminated.
He contributed papers on prison discipline, and initiated
a bill for the summary trial of juvenile offenders.
Thus he appeared not unqualified to preside in a colony
where penal institutions constituted the main business
of government, and where many religious opinions divide
the population.
The gazette which announced his appointment
contained the nomination of Sir Charles Metcalf to
the governorship of Canada, vacated by Sir George
Arthur. An article in the London Times
attacked Sir E. Wilmot with uncommon acrimony, attributed
by himself to the influence of private spleen.
He was described as a mere joking justice, accustomed
in his judicial office to “poke fun” at
prisoners, destitute alike of talents and dignity,
and his character a contrast with that of the new Canadian
governor. This bitter diatribe was published in
the colonies, and was not forgotten in the strife
of factions. Metcalf was indeed a governor with
whom the widest comparison would scarcely find an equal.
Every Capital he ruled is adorned with his statue,
and when he descended to the dust his tomb was wet
with the tears of nations. He consulted the ministers
with the independence of a patriot, and governed the
people as one of themselves.
Wilmot landed at a distance from Hobart
Town, and delayed his entrance on office to afford
time for a removal of Franklin’s household.
When he was sworn in the town illuminated, and the
usual excitement of novelty wore the appearance of
public welcome.
The open and affable address of the
governor attracted the people. He rapidly traversed
the island. The agricultural knowledge he possessed,
his promptitude in forming and expressing opinions,
contrasted with the habits and manners of his predecessor.
Those who were experienced in official life foresaw
the dangers of a temper so free and of movements so
informal. The opponents of the late governor recommended
the neglect of all the distinctions which had limited
intercourse, and some persons, never before seen at
government-house, were admitted to the closet, and
boasted their intimacy and influence.
Scarcely had Wilmot entered office,
when an exercise of mercy brought him into collision
with one of the judges. Kavanagh, a notorious
bushranger, was condemned to death. He had fired
on a settler, whose house he attempted to pillage.
In giving sentence the judge remarked that he had
seldom tried a culprit stained with so great an aggregate
of crime. Ten minutes before the time appointed
for his execution the governor granted a reprieve.
Judge Montagu was indignant, and those who had suffered
by the depredations of the robber shared in his opinion.
The press, in commenting on the commutation, predicted
that the culprit would not long escape the scaffold.
He was implicated in the murders of Norfolk Island,
and suffered death (1846). Judge Montagu, shortly
after the reprieve, tried four men for a similar crime,
and instead of pronouncing sentence, directed death
to be recorded. He stated that the sparing of
Kavanagh could only be justified by the almost total
abolition of capital punishment. At a meeting
of the Midland Agricultural Association Wilmot noticed
these reflections, and declared that he would never
inflict death in consideration of offences not on
the records of the court, and that in this case robbery
only had been proved. He thus early complained
of anonymous attacks, and admitted that in offering
these explanations he was out-stepping the line of
his situation. Topics of a far more agreeable
nature were suggested by the special business of the
day. He dwelt with great fluency on the advantages
of agriculture, and dilated on the importance of independent
tenants and an industrious peasantry. “You,”
he observed, “are to consider yourselves as
the column of a lofty pillar; but, depend upon it,
a tenantry form the pedestal, a virtuous,
moral, and industrious peasantry the foundation on
which that pillar rests. I see around me some
of your largest proprietors, who this day are lords
of wastes and princes of deserts; but who, if the
system of tenantry be carried out as fully as it deserves,
will become patriarchs; and the future Russells, Cavendishes,
and Percys of the colony may be proud to date their
ancestry from any one of you." This strain of
compliment was returned by Mr. Kemp, the oldest of
the settlers, so many years before distinguished
in the deposition of Governor Bligh. He congratulated
the meeting on the appointment of his excellency,
whose presence he compared to “the vivifying
rays of the sun after a long cheerless winter, encouraging
the ploughman to resume his labors with fresh spirit.”
The prevalence of bushranging, though
far less than at an earlier period, induced the midlanders
to project a yeomanry corps. They were to provide
weapons, meet for exercise, and always stand prepared
to answer a summons. They proceeded to the choice
of a treasurer and secretary Messrs. Keach
and Leake, Jun. They were, however, informed
that the levying of armed men is the prerogative of
the Queen. On reference to the governor, he declined
to sanction their incorporation, while he praised
their martial spirit. Bushrangers rarely move
in numbers, and a military is not the kind of power
best adapted to suppress them.
On meeting his council for the first
time (October 21, 1843), Wilmot expressed his admiration
of the colony, its soil, its climate, and immense
resources. He promised to consider the pecuniary
difficulties of the settlers, with a view to their
alleviation. Referring to the appointment of
a comptroller-general, the chief officer of the convict
department, he declared his cordial concurrence with
the new discipline as a reformatory system; and, noticing
the recent arrival of a bishop, he avowed his preference
for the episcopal church, and, in still stronger terms,
his attachment to religious liberty and equality.
The salary of the governor was augmented
to L4,000 per annum: the former uncertain but
expensive allowances were withdrawn. Franklin
had enjoyed L2,000 per annum, as salary, and the government
houses of Hobart Town, New Norfolk, and Launceston;
a farm at New Town, and a large garden in the domain.
The salary of the new governor was given in full discharge
of all demands. The beautiful gardens he determined
to throw open to the public.
Having accepted the office of president,
Wilmot convened the Tasmanian Society, formed by Franklin,
and presented a series of alterations in its organisation.
He proposed that it should consist of a president,
four vice-presidents, and a council of twelve, to be
nominated by the governor; and that at first it should
be limited to fifty fellows. The project was
distasteful to the original members of the Tasmanian
Society, who objected to the summary increase of their
body. Wilmot proceeded to incorporate those who
concurred with his views as “The Horticultural
and Botanical Society of Van Diemen’s Land.”
They were then intrusted with the government garden,
and the appropriation of a grant of L400 per annum,
required for its cultivation. The discarded society
complained of the haste of the proposed revolution.
They thought past services demanded a consideration
of their wishes. They had received in trust an
endowment from Lady Franklin of some prospective value;
they corresponded with men of the first scientific
circles; and they had published a journal which widely
extended the physical knowledge and European fame
of this hemisphere. None who are experienced
in the causes of political discontent will consider
such trifles without serious effect on the tempers
of parties and the peace of rulers.
Wilmot received the government in
a condition most unfavorable to his tranquillity.
The arrival of many thousand prisoners had for a time
quickened trade, and some months elapsed before they
became competitors for the bread of the free mechanics.
The universally low price of labor, the demand for
dwellings, and the closing of a local bank, which
liberated small capitals, occasioned a competition
for town allotments, and set all classes to building.
But this stimulus was soon exhausted, and workmen
of every grade began to suffer distress. They
found hundreds of passholders working at a price to
them, indeed, ample, but on which a family would starve.
The regulations introduced by Lord John Russell discouraged
employment of prisoners in the towns, where they could
easily indulge every evil inclination, and where they
abated the value and respectability of labor; but
such was the pressure of numbers on the colonial government
that its officers were glad to abandon all reformatory
theories to get rid of the crowds which idled their
time and burdened the British treasury. The free
operative classes appealed to the governor for redress.
Wilmot replied by appeals to their humanity:
he said that many prisoners of the crown, influenced
by bad example, ignorance, and want, had lost their
liberty; that it would be unkind and unjust to obstruct
their progress to competence and reformation.
These excuses for a policy which tended to depress
honest workmen only convinced them that it was time
to retire from the country. A more powerful class
might have shown that the proper office of mercy is
to shorten the duration of a sentence, and not to
inflict punishment on unoffending families of freemen.
A party of colonists, who chose Mr.
Gilbert Robertson as their secretary, formed an association
to promote the amelioration of financial embarrassment.
They nominated a “central committee,” to
prepare information for the guidance of the government,
and to watch over legislation. In explaining
their plans to Wilmot they professed to feel confidence
in his liberality, judgment, and zeal. To this
he replied in glowing terms. He told them that
during a short residence he had traversed the colony
and acquired a knowledge of its value; that he had
projected many schemes for the improvement of agriculture
and the relief of the treasury. He gave strong
assurances both of his expectation of better days
and his efforts to hasten them; but then he complained
that the association, by its structure and schemes,
depressed his anticipations; that they proposed to
supersede imperial instructions, and to supplant his
constitutional advisers. The objections he offered,
and the tone in which they were urged, induced a practical
dissolution of the society scarcely compatible
with regular government.
For the last time in these colonies
application was made by the settlers for a law to
restrict the amount of usury. It had been a favorite
object for many years. They asserted that the
exactions of capitalists involved the colony in a
hopeless struggle. England had, however, abrogated
usury laws, and left the value of money to be determined
by the ordinary relations of supply and demand.
To this principle the governor resolved to adhere
(1844).
What the law could not effect was
produced by a less exceptionable process. The
merchants and professional men addressed the banks,
and urged an abatement of interest, then 10 per cent.
for short-dated bills, and 12-1/2 for renewals.
They appealed rather to liberality than to abstract
right. This was followed by a reduction in the
Van Diemen’s Land Bank, an example
which the other establishments did not readily adopt.
Eight per cent. soon, however, became the highest amount
usually exacted in regular transactions.
The difficulties of the agriculturists
from the low price of grain, induced them to look
for artificial relief. With too much facility
Wilmot gave hopes which he could not realise.
The imposition of a heavy duty on New South Wales
tobacco, amounting to prohibition, and that just as
it was reaching considerable perfection, led to the
imposition of a duty on our grain. It was the
wish of the Tasmanian settlers to restore free trade
between the colonies, and to impose discriminating
duties on the produce of foreign countries; but the
harsh and ridiculous system of colonial government,
which discriminated between Australian and Canadian
grain, compelled one British colony to treat another,
its next neighbor, as an alien, and that while England
demanded free admittance for English manufactures.
The peremptory instructions of Stanley were conveyed
to the local governors in terms of intimidation.
They were forbidden to allow any kindred colony the
least advantage over foreigners, or to pass any bill
for that purpose, and were told that any evasion of
this restriction would occasion the high displeasure
of the crown. The reason alleged for this interference
was that colonies could not be expected to understand
the treaties and trading system of the parent state;
as if any treaty should have hindered a commerce actually
not more distinct than the trade between London and
Liverpool. Wilmot warmly espoused the claim of
the Australian colonies to share in the privilege of
Canada, in favor of which the duties had been relaxed
on colonial grain. Mr. Hutt brought their petitions
before the attention of parliament; but he could not
plead a political necessity, and the ministers were
able to resist without the risk of a rebellion.
They asserted that the distance made the concession
of no practical value, while it would tend to augment
the alarm of the English farmers! Thus, while
they humored the empty fears of their own constituents,
they afforded another example of the futility of colonial
petitions which, however just, it is convenient to
disregard.
To assist agriculture, the council
passed an act interdicting the use of sugar, under
certain conditions, by public brewers. The trade
strongly objected to the restriction, as impolitic,
vexatious, and impracticable. Their objections
were admitted by the secretary of state, who quietly
observed that he had been advised that sugar could
not be considered deleterious. This is the last
attempt at protective legislation.
To benefit the rural interest the
governor proposed a grand scheme of irrigation.
An eminent engineer, Major Cotton, was employed to
report on the subject, and suggested the detention
of the waters of the vast lakes which overflow from
the heights of the western mountains. A rate to
be imposed on the various estates was to discharge
the cost. Thus in those seasons of drought which
sometimes occur the lowlands would be made increasingly
fertile. The immediate object the employment
of probation labor at the colonial cost detracted
something from the charms of the project. Nor
did it seem just that the settlers should risk the
ultimate cost of an undertaking they could not limit.
Sir E. Wilmot earnestly recommended the scheme to
the home government, but Lord Stanley hesitated until
the evils of the probation system enforced a change,
and lessened the labor at the disposal of the crown.
Had the men been employed on a work so popular they
would have been withdrawn from the colonial eye, and
the interest of their new labors might have extinguished
the prevailing discontent. But while the governor
waited for instructions the men were idle, or employed
in useless attempts at cultivation on barren land,
of which the produce rarely defrayed the cost of the
implements destroyed.
The charge for police and gaols had
always been borne by the legislative council with
impatience. The estimates were accompanied by
an annual protest against entailing on the colony
any pecuniary consequence of British crime. But
when the convict labor was withdrawn from the roads,
and new taxes demanded, the time arrived for the most
decided resistance, and the event proved that the
councillors who refused their consent acted with prudence.
The minister himself was compelled to own at last,
that the exaction of twenty shillings per head for
police, was unexampled in civilised governments.
In 1836 Mr. Spring Rice (now Lord
Monteagle) took advantage of a considerable local
land fund to throw on the council the police establishment
of the colony, occasioned by transportation. The
sum then required (L14,000) was comparatively unimportant,
and it was urged that the labor of convicts employed
on public works at the cost of Great Britain, except
L4,000 for superintendence, was a sufficient compensation.
But the charge for constabulary and prisons gradually
increased to L36,000. The land fund, after deducting
L97,000, expended for emigration, for the support
of aborigines, and the working of the land office,
yielded in ten years a surplus of L207,000, carried
to the general revenue; but during this time the charge
for police and gaols exceeded L311,000. The increase
of judicial expenses, and especially of witnesses,
was proportionately great; and this last item in one
year (1846), although most lighter crimes were disposed
of in a summary way, rose to L6,000. The execution
of public works by the crown had been the sole vindication
of these charges. From this arrangement Lord Stanley
departed, and in peremptory terms prohibited a spade
to be moved but on payment from the colonial treasury.
Thus at a season of commercial stagnation the benefit
of convict labor was withdrawn, while the charges
for police and gaols rose to one-third of the entire
revenue of the colony, and in two years and a-half
a debt accumulated to L100,000.
Notwithstanding the obvious injustice
of this burden, the treatment of the New South Wales
legislature gave slight hope of redress. Lord
Stanley directed Sir George Gipps to obviate the threatened
resistance of that council by hastening pardons to
the prisoners, by withdrawing them from the service
of the settlers, and by sending those not otherwise
disposable to Van Diemen’s Land. He was
forbidden to relieve extreme financial difficulties
by drafts on England, or draw from the military chest,
although at the period an immense body of convicts
remained long after transportation had ceased.
This disregard of a more powerful colony led the people
of Van Diemen’s Land to infer that from a minister
so unscrupulous no justice could be expected while
evasion was possible.
Wilmot was deeply embarrassed, but
he determined to adhere to the instructions of the
secretary of state, whose distance prevented his perceiving
the hopelessness of his project until that discovery
was unavailing. The positive nature of these
injunctions left no room for discretion. The
governor was commanded not to adopt any detailed regulations
at variance with the scheme prescribed by the crown,
or to depart from its provisions without express authority.
Sir Eardley Wilmot resolved that the
utmost extent of taxation should be tried rather than
infringe the orders of Stanley. A bill to raise
the duties on sugar, teas, and foreign goods from
5 to 15 per cent. encountered an earnest but unavailing
opposition. This bill was still more obnoxious
from a clause, afterwards abandoned, to levy the duty
on the current value of goods at the market of consumption,
instead of export a mode which taxed all
the expenses of shipment. Mr. Gregson proposed
the rejection of an impost required only by the extraordinary
pressure of convictism. Several of the non-official
members voted with the governor for the last time.
A committee of the council had been
appointed to ascertain how the expenditure could be
reduced and the revenue augmented. They enumerated
various forms in which further taxation might be practicable.
These were proposed by the governor. Auctioneers,
pawnbrokers, publicans, butchers, eating-house keepers,
stage-coach and steam-boat proprietors, cabmen, and
watermen, were to be subject to new or increased license
fees.
This project aroused the people to
an unusual degree. On the day of public meeting
a procession of cabs and waggons, decorated with flags
bearing the inscription, “No taxation without
representation,” presented a novelty in colonial
agitation. Mr. Kemp, the veteran politician,
presided. The opposition prevailed, and the governor
resolved to withdraw the obnoxious measure. It
would be difficult to discern a line beyond which
taxation might not pass, if every trade and profession
can be subject to arbitrary imposts levied by a legislature
at the mere dictation of the crown.
Referring to this meeting as a triumph
which history would report to the latest posterity,
the Courier added “Rulers will
henceforth recoil from the virtuous indignation of
the people, as the reptile recoiled from the touch
of Ithuriel’s spear.” It was supposed
by Wilmot that this not very lucid prediction conveyed
a gross and personal insult, and that it attributed
to him the artifices and loathsome habits of the fiend.
The private secretary was instructed to withdraw the
subscription of the governor, and to explain the cause
of his displeasure. Such petulance took the colony
by surprise. A less experienced politician might
have been expected to disregard a heavier censure;
and this conflict with a local editor was noticed
by the London press as a curious instance of official
sensibility.
The sheriff refused to call a meeting
to consider the condition of the colony, because one
of the objects was to notice the appropriation of
the public revenue. This he had been advised was
an interference with the royal prerogative! The
friendly tone of his refusal restrained the wrath
it was calculated to excite. It is quite impossible
to suppose any branch of politics more clearly within
the sphere of popular remonstrance than the expenditure
of the public money (August, 1845).
Mr. Bicheno, the colonial secretary,
who, like the governor, might have been popular in
quiet times, was little qualified for a stormy debate.
He announced the most arbitrary notions in the blandest
tones, and asserted that the doctrine of concurrent
representation and taxation was a wild revolutionary
idea, exploded by American independence. The
revenues he called the Queen’s, and thought it
monstrous that any should dispute her right to her
own. Though he compared the parent country to
the hen and the colonies to chickens, he could see
nothing to disturb the analogy in a demand for fresh
contributions. He asserted that all constitutional
history showed that it was the prerogative of the crown
to tax the people, and instanced the Cape a
conquered province as an example.
He affirmed that customs were not taxes, as the public
were not compelled to use the articles on which they
were levied. The prosperity of communities he
asserted rose with the increase of taxation; that the
placards posted over the town were a complete delusion.
Taxation and representation a cry first
introduced by Lord Chatham, was, he said, never adopted
by the liberal whigs (August, 1845). Such un-English
notions were no assistance to the cause of the executive,
and were distasteful to all who pretended to value
constitutional government.
The ad valorem duties, raised
to 15 per cent., for some time produced less than
they realised at five. The licensing scheme being
rejected, nothing remained but to reduce the expenditure
or increase the debt. To relieve the revenue
and employ the convicts the executive proposed a road
act, and another for lighting and paving Hobart Town.
The great objection to these measures was their design
to evade the question at issue between the home government
and the colony; with many more odious still
as recognising a right in a crown appointed legislature
either directly or indirectly to tax the people.
Mr. Gregson stated early in the session that he would
not levy a shilling additional until the burdens of
police were equitably adjusted. Supported by Captain
Swanston, formerly a staunch adherent of Sir G. Arthur,
he successfully moved the rejection of these bills.
Their discussion drew forth many expressions of personal
feeling. The governor declared he would not stay
in office one hour did he not believe that Lord Stanley
meant fairly by the colony, or could he not conscientiously
act upon his lordship’s instructions; and he
begged that all the opprobrium cast on Lord Stanley
might be considered equally applied to himself.
He remarked that the opposition had exhibited a spirit
“more radical and even Jacobinical” than
he ever had witnessed in parliamentary factions.
These reproaches were repelled by Mr. Gregson, who
contended that in resisting unjust exactions for convict
purposes he was promoting the real interests of the
colonial government. The governor retorted that
with such support as the honorable member afforded
he would readily dispense.
When the estimates for the year were
presented (August 20th) the country party insisted
on enquiry, and Mr. Dry proposed the appointment of
a committee to ascertain the proportionate burdens
transportation imposed. This motion was rejected
by the governor’s casting vote. Another,
made for adjournment, to give the members time to
investigate the items, met a similar fate. It
was, however, discovered when the estimates were read
that they differed from the copy in the hands of the
members. The chief justice supported a second
motion for adjournment, to enable the colonial secretary
to correct these discrepancies. On the re-assembling
of the council (25th) the governor stated that considering
the determination avowed by the members to refuse
all items for the expenses of convictism, and the
general state of popular feeling, he had resolved
to pause, and to await the arrival of expected despatches
on the subject of dispute from Lord Stanley, in reply
to his own.
Sir E. Wilmot was sensible of the
financial burden inflicted by the convict establishments.
A committee of government officers sat shortly after
his arrival, and pointed out the many and large items
to be traced to the prevention and punishment of crime.
This report he forwarded to Lord Stanley. He
complained that charges never before thought of were
levied by the commissariat, as well as the full value
of convict labor, and insisted that the expences incurred
by the colonists for police ought in fairness to be
defrayed by the crown, or that the labor at its disposal
should as formerly be allowed in compensation.
So late as August, 1844, the secretary
of state refused to entertain the claim for relief.
He stated that the colony would be obliged to expend
a sum nearly equal, although all the convicts were
withdrawn; for their sakes, he said, the island was
colonised; they constituted the working population;
and he added that in the military and naval protection,
the support of the unemployed convict, and the capital
and cheap labor poured into the colony, a fair proportion
of expenditure was borne by the crown.
Pressed by extraordinary difficulties,
Wilmot again urged the injustice of these conclusions.
He complained that not only India, China, and the
Cape of Good Hope, but New South Wales, were pouring
in felons of the worst description, who, as pass-holders,
occasioned a vast outlay for the suppression of crime.
He told his lordship that for several years the land
fund had totally failed, while the expenses of police
and gaols, of judges and witnesses, had risen to L50,000.
At this time the number of arrivals was five thousand
annually, sent from every colony and dependency of
the empire, as well as from the United Kingdom.
There were between three and four thousand pass-holders
unemployed, 7,000 in private service, 6,000 about
to emerge from the gangs, 8,000 with tickets-of-leave
or conditional pardons, and in all more than 30,000
unqualified to quit the island without the consent
of the crown.
It is impossible to read these representations
without feeling indignant at the nobleman who suffered
the representative of the Queen to struggle with difficulties
so manifold and great, who left him to the
alternative of breaking through positive prohibitions
or of incurring popular distrust and aversion.
To this delay the governor owed much of the opposition
he suffered, and the imperial government inconveniences
of lasting consequence. Nothing was conceded to
justice nothing to entreaty; and the secretary
of state yielded at last as despotism must ever yield, without
merit and without thanks.
The whole change in the details of
the convict department was marked by a spirit eminently
opposed to the colonial welfare. With singular
acuteness and perspicuity Lord Stanley described the
former systems as subject to local influence and subservient
to local ends. Every governor, he alleged, was
under a strong bias in favor of expense, as the patron
of a multitude of officials. He stated that the
executive council were equally benefited by the wasteful
expenditure, either in their own persons or those
of their official brethren, and that every colonist
had an interest in the multiplication of bills on the
British treasury. To prevent these abuses, the
convict estimates were thenceforth to be prepared
by the colonial secretary, the comptroller-general,
and the commissariat officer, subject to the approval
of the secretary of state.
The management of the prisoners being
confided to the judgment of the governor, Lord Stanley
deemed the chief cause of its many changes, and its
subservience to colonial prosperity. The deference
of the ministers to this discretion he attributed
to the unwillingness of the home office to interfere
with a functionary in correspondence with the colonial
office, and the reluctance of the secretary for the
colonies to guide a penal system designed for interests
exclusively imperial. Thus, he stated, the governor
was practically independent, and had strong inducements
to render the labor of convicts subservient to colonial
wealth, and to disregard the great design the
prevention of crime in Great Britain. He declared
that all schemes of convict management were of colonial
origin, and all contemplated local interests as their
main object. To prevent these devices he proposed
to retain in the colonial-office the exclusive management
of the details of transportation.
Among the items of convict expense
was a charge of L164,000 for rations. This Lord
Stanley considered an extravagant outlay. He deemed
it highly improper that in a country where all the
means of subsistence existed in such abundance with
an unlimited supply of manual labor, this charge should
remain. He however feared that while the convicts
were permitted to labor on works of colonial utility
the local authorities would always find means to increase
the charges for their subsistence (Fe, ’43).
The treasury concurred in this view, and requested
that explicit instructions might be given to Wilmot
and the comptroller-general to prevent the employment
of labor for the colonial benefit, and to devote their
utmost efforts to raise the food on the waste lands
of the colony.
The convict department attempted agriculture,
and they selected for the experiment cold, damp, and
barren soils. Gardens of a few acres occupied
a thousand men: the cleared land was utterly worthless.
Garden seeds were brought into the colonial market,
and potatos sold at twenty shillings which cost the
government L10 per ton. Several hundred men idled
their time in cultivating land which did not equal
in the aggregate a single farm. The estimated
value of all the articles produced on two stations,
Deloraine and Westbury, in 1846, by four hundred men,
was less than L2 per man; while the salaries of their
officers were nearly double that sum.
Mr. Montagu, the late colonial secretary,
in estimating the cost of the convict department,
presented a calculation L100,000 annually less than
the estimate of the officers on the spot. This
difference Lord Stanley set up as proof of the culpable
negligence and profligacy of colonial expense.
He considered the body of persons employed in the control
of prisoners excessive. A reduction was therefore
enforced, and in the end less surveillance was employed
than free labor usually requires.
To each party of three hundred seven
overseers were attached, without constables or other
restraint. The sub-division of these parties in
labor left them often to the practical oversight of
a single person, and he an expirée. Thus
they were able to make excursions for the purposes
of robbery and pleasure: their clothing tended
rather to disguise than distinguish them. As
the terms of their service expired they were discharged
in the prison dress, and no one could tell whether
they were or not illegally at large. Escaped
prisoners have been known to walk through bodies of
men on the road without challenge. In several
instances robberies were committed on travellers within
the precincts of the stations. The enclosures
were often merely the common garden fence. The
judges avowed that in passing sentence for crimes they
could not punish them with severity, considering the
strong temptations of the men. Remembering the
number virtually and legally at large, the degree
of safety, or rather the instances of exemption from
pillage, must be considered almost miraculous.
A great portion of minor crimes were not prosecuted,
and a still larger number were undetected; but eight
hundred recorded crimes a scourge to ten
thousand families, and full of terror and danger to
all would not seem extravagant when divided
among thirty thousand prisoners.
The despatches of Wilmot to Lord Stanley
described with accurate minuteness the social effects
of the probation system. Those who remember his
apparent apathy when those evils were the topics of
colonial complaint will deplore the strange fidelity
to his political chief which induced him to conceal
his own sentiments from the colonists. He stated
that the territory was inundated with unemployed prisoners;
that no labor being in demand, they must either starve
or steal; that a yearly increasing pauper population,
without adding one atom to colonial wealth, would
swell the catalogue of crime and increase the public
expense in every form; that the number out of employment
was fearfully great; and that land cleared,
fenced, in complete cultivation, with houses and buildings might
be bought at the upset price of waste land. To
remedy these evils he proposed the extension of conditional
pardons to the Australian colonies, the remission of
the price of crown lands to emigrants, and the letting
of allotments at a nominal rental for seven years
to conditionally pardoned men, with a contingent right
of purchase.
To all these remonstrances, so far
as they affected the colonist, Lord Stanley had a
ready reply. The colony was originally penal,
and could claim neither compensation nor relief.
He considered that in emigrating the colonists surrendered
at discretion; that they were not entitled to object
to the trebling of their police burdens and to the
importation of all instead of a small part of the
convicts of the empire, as was the case up to 1840.
His rejoinder was felt with that bitterness which none
can realise who have not known the tyranny of irresistible
despotism. Happily for mankind there is no power
above the steady and determined operations of truth
and right. The cruel desertion of the people in
the hour of their distress the scornful
defiance of their complaints, has involved the cabinet
of England in difficulties for which nothing but great
sacrifices will fully obviate. No people in this
hemisphere will entirely trust a British minister
until the history of Van Diemen’s Land is forgotten.
The anticipated relief not having
arrived, the governor again assembled the council
on the 21st of October. He now proposed several
expedients to meet the exigencies of the moment.
He had, unauthorised by the council, borrowed money
of a bank. He proposed to stop the forage allowance
of the clergy, and to retain 12-1/2 per cent. of the
salaries of the officials. Both these measures
were withstood the last effectively.
The chief justice denied the power of the council to
interfere with his income. When a new set of estimates
was offered they were found to be unintelligible,
and an adjournment, to enable the colonial secretary
to afford the necessary information, was proposed by
Mr. Dry. This reasonable request was lost by the
governor’s casting vote, and several motions
with a similar object were defeated in the same manner.
Mr. O’Connor, the non-official member who supported
the executive, was absent, and thus the votes of the
official and country party were equal, and the balance
was in the governor’s hands. At the next
sitting of the council Wilmot proposed to pass the
estimates. Ineffectual efforts to postpone their
consideration exhausted all means of evasion, and
Mr. Dry moved that the Appropriation Act should be
read that day six months. He expatiated on the
injustice of the system which condemned the colony
to the cost of an imperial scheme, and insisted on
the solemn obligation of the council to resist an accumulation
of debt which must involve the colony in ruin.
Mr. Gregson followed, and referred to the unavailing
representations of Sir G. Arthur, Sir John Franklin,
and Sir E. Wilmot himself, in reference to police expenses,
and dwelling on the evils of the convict system.
An adjournment of the debate being moved the governor
opposed it with his deliberative and casting vote,
and added that he resisted the motion because it was
only intended to embarrass. The Appropriation
Act would then have gone to the third reading, but
the non-official members at once quitted the chamber,
and reduced the number below the legal quorum.
On the day following Mr. Gregson appeared at the table
and apologised for the absence of his honorable brethren,
who were preparing a protest to present on the morrow.
Wilmot complained of discourtesy, and denounced the
opposition as disloyal and unconstitutional.
They asserted that quitting the council chamber was
not unusual, and was not a concerted movement, and
resented in decided language the charge of disloyalty, amounting
in sworn councillors to perjury, if rigorously construed.
The governor afterwards explained that he had reference
only to the particular instance, and not to their
general intentions.
It had been publicly rumored that
rather than allow the Appropriation Act to pass, several
members had resolved to resign. Captain Swanston,
less prominent in opposition, waited on the governor,
and earnestly advised him to forward another set of
estimates, prepared by Captain Swanston, for the approval
of the secretary of state. He warned him that
should he persevere a rupture would inevitably follow.
In this interview the governor expressed his determination
to proceed. He forgot, it would seem, some of
those forms of civility which no man can safely neglect,
and Captain Swanston left him with a sense of personal
affront, an immedicable wound.
In this temper the council met on
the 3rd of October. Mr. Gregson called the attention
of the members to a question submitted to Mr. Francis
Smith, a barrister: Whether, as chairman of a
committee, the governor had a deliberate and casting
vote, and whether the quorum required by law at a
meeting of council was requisite in committee; and
thus whether the estimates were legally passed through
the committee, the numbers present being less than
one third, and the governor giving his double vote.
Mr. Smith gave his opinion that the estimates were
in law rejected instead of carried; but the chief
justice considered the sitting of committee merely
a convenient method to sift beforehand items afterwards
to receive a legal sanction in the council. The
attorney-general without notice was unprepared to give
an opinion, and a motion of Mr. Gregson for delay
was lost. The colonial secretary then moved the
third reading of the obnoxious bill, when Mr. Dry rose
to read a minute, signed by the members in opposition,
objecting to the proceedings. This being rejected
as irregular, Mr. Gregson proposed that the third
reading should be delayed that the members dissenting
might bring forward other estimates. In urging
this motion he rebutted the “disloyal”
imputation, and referred the governor to the unity
existing in the country party in proof that inevitable
necessity alone had prompted the co-operation of persons
hitherto adverse. This motion being lost before
the Appropriation Act could be carried the
opposition quitted the council. Those remaining
did not constitute a quorum, and the legislative session
was abruptly terminated. The Gazette of
November the 4th announced that Charles Swanston, Michael
Fenton, John Kerr, William Kermode, Thomas G. Gregson,
and Richard Dry, Esquires, had resigned their seats.
The obligation of the official members
of the council to vote with the governor on all government
questions had been long before decided. The non-official
were only bound by their oaths to assist in all measures
necessary for the good of the colony, but the nature
of their powers and the proper mode of their exercise
were subjects of dispute. Wilmot maintained that
they were assisting in “a council of advice”
on subjects submitted to their judgment, and were
not qualified to question the general policy of the
executive. All beyond a simple aye or no he deemed
usurpation. Thus when they demanded papers, called
for committees, and obstructed obnoxious measures
by the artifices of parliamentary debate, they were
charged with forgetting the duties of their office.
These gentlemen, however, maintained that it was their
duty to hold the executive in check on behalf of the
people, and that whatever was not abstracted from
their supervision by specific laws was proper for their
consideration. The governor claimed a deliberate
and casting vote; and thus one non-official member,
by concurring with the executive, or even by abstaining
from voting, neutralised the voice of the rest.
The official members had no discretion allowed.
Lord Stanley had ruled that, choosing to assume relations
disqualifying them to vote with the governor, they
were perfectly free to do so; but having done so, they
could not retain their employment. He alleged
that there would be an end of official subordination,
and that the public service would be brought into
serious discredit by allowing a different course.
He admitted that exceptions might occur, but their
force was left to the judgment of the governor.
This decision reduced the official debates to a mere
pantomime, and a seven-fold vote would have better
expressed the real character of the legislature than
the disguise of separate suffrages. The
chief justice was alone independent.
Having resigned their office, the
six sent a letter of explanation to Lord Stanley.
In summing up their complaints they asserted that they
were called on to vote an expenditure the colony could
not bear, to anticipate a revenue higher
than the customs department calculated on receiving;
that they were denied information, although they were
bound to deliberate; that they were expected to augment
an alarming debt, and, when crime was increasing,
to diminish police protection; that they were told
by the governor he would carry the estimates by his
casting-vote, before they refused to pass or had examined
them; that the governor claimed power to borrow and
spend without legislative consent; and finally, that
discussion and enquiry were denounced as factious,
unconstitutional, and disloyal: under these circumstances
they resigned their seats, as the only open course,
and submitted their conduct to the judgment of the
Queen.
The opposition to the measures of
Wilmot could not be in every instance justified if
separately considered. But the colony discovered
in the governor an inflexible determination to carry
out the system of probation under the instructions
of Lord Stanley. It was not possible to resist
the secretary of state, the chief aggressor. The
imperious tenor of his despatches taught the people
that mere remonstrance would be unavailing. They
could only arrest his attention by involving his agents
in embarrassment. Repeated motions for the attainment
of the same object are certainly incompatible with
legislative order. A small party might retard
the public business, and gain no good end by delay;
but the exact line between fair and factious opposition
is not easily discovered and can be often only ascertained
by the result. In this instance the object was
clearly expressed in a rejected resolution: “This
council do decline voting the sums stated in the estimates
laid on the table for the payment of the judicial,
police, and gaol establishments during the ensuing
year, as far as the expenses of the convict department
with respect to those items are incurred. At
the same time they desire to place on record an expression
of regret that they should, by a sense of duty, be
compelled to adopt any measure likely even temporarily
to embarrass his excellency’s government."
The cause of “the patriotic
six,” as they were called, was eagerly espoused
by the colony. To supply the vacancies occasioned
by their retirement was the labor of weeks. The
governor defended himself from the charge of despotism,
and declared that he would never interrupt the freedom
of debate or attempt to force the compliance of the
council. The opposition press held up to scorn
those disposed to accept a nomination, and gentlemen
who did so were assailed with scandalous abuse, so
easily is the noblest cause degraded by its friends.
A more suitable expression of popular feeling was
given on the return of Mr. Dry to his native town.
He was escorted by a large concourse of people and
with all the usual tokens of public esteem. The
father of Mr. Dry was exiled during the political
troubles of Ireland in the last century, and after
a respectable career attained considerable wealth.
The son, the first legislator chosen from the country-born,
the colonists saw with pleasure consecrate himself
to the cause of his native land. Mr. Gregson,
the leader of the opposition, was honored in a more
substantial form. A body of his admirers, by
contributions of large amounts, raised a testimonial
in the shape of 2,000 guineas, and plate with a suitable
inscription. On no previous occasion had public
sympathy so attended political controversy, and never
was the legislative freedom of the country more earnestly
desired.
SECTION II.
The development of the new convict
system gradually disclosed its adverse character,
and excited general dissatisfaction and alarm.
The press warned the people that an attempt to change
the whole aspect of the colony, from a free to a mere
prison community, could only be resisted by instant
measures. Abolition of transportation was spoken
of, although as a contingency rather than an object
desirable; and a few only of the colonists were anxious
to speed that event. Among these was Mr. Pitcairn,
a solicitor of Hobart Town, a gentleman never before
prominent in politics, but eminently fitted to lead
the community on this question. The first petition
of a series unexampled in number was drawn up by him,
and offered to the colonists for signature. All
its allegations were supported by documentary evidence,
drawn from the public records.
The location of the gangs exposed
them every moment to public observation. A frightful
sketch of their distribution was drawn by the author
of the petition. “If,” said he, “you
look at the last map of Van Diemen’s Land (Mr.
Frankland’s), you will see, at the entrance of
D’Entrecasteaux’s Channel, South Port.
Here there are 500 men. Above, at Port Esperance,
400 men. Above this, along the banks of the Huon,
the farmers begin. At Port Cygnet, up the Huon,
there are 350 men; proceeding up the channel, you
come to Oyster Cove, 250; Brown’s River (just
above Worth West Bay and five miles from Hobart Town),
500. Taking now the main road from Hobart Town
to Launceston (the lands on each side being all settled,
fenced, and improved), you will see Glenorchy (eight
miles from Hobart Town), 150 men; Bridgewater (twelve
miles), 100; Cross Marsh (thirty miles), 100; Jericho
(forty miles), 100; Oatlands (fifty miles), 180; Ross
(seventy miles), 120; and Cleveland (86 miles), 250.
At Perth (one hundred miles from Hobart Town and nineteen
from Launceston), there was another gang, which was
recently withdrawn. Leaving the main road, there
are at the Broad Marsh, 240 men; at Fingal, 400; at
Buckland, 250; at Jerusalem, 500; at St. Mary’s,
300; at Westbury, 200; at Deloraine, 300; at the Mersey,
200. In all, twenty gangs, comprising 5500 men.”
The petition this statement sustained
desired the most moderate changes: the
reduction of the number transported to Van Diemen’s
Land to the standard of 1840; the amelioration of
the discipline; the relief of the settlers from the
expense occasioned by the presence of prisoners; and
the gradual and total abolition of transportation.
It was not adopted at a public meeting, but was published
in several newspapers, and deliberately signed by
those who admitted its facts and joined in its prayer.
Upwards of 1,700 persons attached their names, including
six non-official councillors, forty-one magistrates,
and many other persons of influence.
The committee who took charge of the
petition requested the governor would testify to the
truth of its allegations and the respectability of
the petitioners. In few words he promised compliance.
He accompanied the petition with a despatch generally
hostile to the object and unfriendly to the character
of the subscribers, whom he described as men habitually
factious, and who attributed their difficulties to
any cause but the right. He asserted that their
colonial property was trifling, and that they were
encumbered with debt. He ascribed their discontent
to insolvency, and their embarrassment to extravagance
and speculation. He disputed most of their statements distinguished
between them and the more respectable majority against
them and stated that the number of signatures
was due to the indolent facility with which such documents
were signed. This despatch (August 1, 1845) was
printed for the use of parliament, and soon came into
the hands of the colonists. The absence of constitutional
channels for the expression of their dissatisfaction
led them to a measure which would otherwise be deemed
an extreme one. Sir E. Wilmot was the patron
of the Midland Agricultural Association, a body including
much of the wealth and influence of the colony.
They were convened by certain of the members, and
the obnoxious despatch was laid before them.
An animated and indignant debate terminated in the
removal of Wilmot from his place as their patron.
No prudent colonist would desire to see this precedent
often followed. The distinction between a governor
as the head of the social circle and as the chief of
a political body will be more readily apprehended
when his power shall be less absolute, and his secret
advice no longer over-ride the wishes and interests
of the people.
Having filled up the vacancies in
the legislative council, Sir E. Wilmot called them
together. It appeared that money had been provided
and appropriated, and a pledge given to the bank to
confirm the contract in the council. It was intended
to issue debentures, and thus settle out-standing
accounts. Messrs. Reed and Hopkins offered to
this scheme a decided opposition, and being unsuccessful,
they resigned their seats.
The English government at length agreed
to pay L24,000 per annum towards the police expenditure,
but at the same time excepted the waste lands of the
island from the general system. The land fund,
elsewhere given up for the benefit of the colony,
was assumed by the lords of the treasury. It
was contemplated to employ convicts in clearing and
cultivating, and by the sale of land to indemnify
the crown for the outlay. The governor was authorised
by the secretary of state to allot portions of land
to ticket-of-leave holders, a measure offensive
to the settlers in general, and found to be impracticable.
The legislative council passed several
acts of great colonial consequence. The Abolition
of Differential Duties Bill (July, ’46) exacted
the 15 per cent, ad valorem on colonial commerce,
in obedience to the policy of ministers. Thus
the inter-colonial trade was loaded with burdens of
great severity, and in many instances it was cheaper
to send raw material to London and import English,
than to exchange colonial manufactures. The measure
was welcomed by some sheep-holding members as a tax
on Port Phillip sheep, but the government disclaimed
any other object than the increase of the revenue.
A heavy retaliatory rate was then imposed by the New
South Wales legislature. They however addressed
their governor to obtain, if possible, a disallowance
of the exactions of Wilmot. Messrs. Dunn, Orr,
and Stieglitz entered their protest against the bill,
and avowed the principles of free trade.
A bill for electing commissioners
of paving and lighting for the city of Hobart passed
the council (August, ’46), and although disliked
as an indirect scheme of taxation, was not unpopular.
The first election under it occasioned a keen competition
and considerable excitement. It was the first
instance of representation, but the bill made no provision
for a scrutiny, and the returning officer declared
the poll against the protests of the defeated candidates.
Many fictitious votes had swollen the numbers of their
antagonists. The commissioners sat for some months,
and gave exemplary attention to their duties; but when
the time came for rating the city, the defect of their
election appalled them. This objection was long
foreseen. An election without a scrutiny might
not be founded on one valid vote. The government,
unwilling to admit the defect of the bill, did not
attempt to reform its details, and at length it fell
into disuetude.
A measure of still greater ultimate
importance was enacted by the council, intended “to
restrict the increase of dogs.” A heavy
tax was imposed on the keepers of this indispensable
protector of house and fold. The multitude running
about the streets was felt to be a nuisance, and the
destruction of flocks required some check; but the
frame-work of the bill was objectionable, and the
charge excessive. It will be seen hereafter that
the tax occasioned the most serious disputes.
The administration of Sir E. Wilmot
was, however, suddenly brought to a close. Reports,
forwarded by Mr. Forster, and adopted by the governor,
extolled the outlines of Lord Stanley’s system,
while events were constantly occurring which, amply
sustained by respectable testimony, demonstrated its
sad consequences. Evils of a serious nature were
extensively prevalent, some, inseparable
from every scheme of penal discipline, others aggravated
by the excessive dimensions of the probation system,
and not a few the result of the failure of demand for
labor. The worst effects of sensuality were the
most alarming feature of the system, but even they
were probably only more flagrant because the extent
of transportation gave them a wider range. Remedial
measures demanded an outlay and inspection which the
instructions of the home government had prohibited
in language the most distinct. The ministers,
having tied up the governor’s hands, complained
that he had carried economy to a pernicious extent,
and in reporting the state of the prisoners, had passed
over important questions. But those who examine
the despatches of Wilmot with care will be compelled
to question the accuracy of these complaints.
There is scarcely an evil which the progress of the
scheme unfolded that he did not admit and illustrate.
These evils he thought partly accidental and partly
inevitable in all penal schemes; but still he maintained
that, with all its defects, the probation system,
as such, was the best ever devised by the British
ministry. Lord Stanley indeed stated that in “five
reports from Captain Forster and seventeen despatches
from Wilmot, he had either received no intelligence
or that their remarks were casual, slight, and few.”
Thus at the end of three years he found himself destitute
of any clear understanding in reference to the conclusions
which Mr. Forster, as the immediate agent, or the
governor, as the chief superintendent, must have formed
respecting the soundness of the principles or the wisdom
of the plans which both had been called upon to administer
(September, ’45). It was thus apparent
that the colonial-office held the governor responsible
not only for obedience to positive instructions, but
for their results; and that, in the event of a sacrifice
being required, the officers on the spot would be
devoted: and so it happened.
In closing the session (September,
1845) Sir E. Wilmot announced his recall. Although
not usual then to address the council, he stated that
he could not permit the members to disperse without
acknowledging their assistance. A delusion for
a time might expose a public man to popular injustice;
but however misjudged, either during his life-time
or after death, his character would require no other
vindication than truth would afford. He informed
them that his recall was not occasioned by his differences
with the late members, but was ascribed to an imputed
neglect of the moral and religious welfare of the prisoners;
and he added, that the memory of their kindness would
remain with him during the short remainder of his
life.
Mr. Gladstone, who had received the
seals of office, conveyed to Wilmot the notice of
his removal. The despatch is a singular example
of its author’s mental habits. While he
complained that the governor’s statements were
obscure, he gave his own views in odd and scarcely
intelligible terms. Thus, the governor had adverted
to the moral condition of the convicts “in a
manner too little penetrating:” he had
not made it a point of his duty “to examine the
inner world of their mental, moral, and spiritual
state.” Mr. Gladstone charged him with
neglecting the vices of the stations an
error in judgment so serious as to render his removal
imperative. These whimsical terms of reprobation
excited universal astonishment. Practical men
felt that the knowledge of the thirty thousand prisoners
except by their conduct, to be ascertained by collating
statistics, was rather more difficult than the hopeless
task of similar investigations in ordinary life.
The English press, with some truth and bitterness,
described such demands as an encouragement of hypocrisy
and religious pretence. No wise or good man will
discredit religious teaching, but all such will look
with suspicion, if not dread, and even disgust, on
the statistics of prison piety generally
false and designing, in proportion as it is loud and
ostentatious. The defects of the governor as
a legislator were not taken into account. Mr.
Gladstone indeed attempted to balance with much precision
the merits of the patriotic six. He admitted
that advice and assistance to the Queen might sometimes
take the form of strenuous opposition to the executive.
He denied the distinction between the offices of an
elective and of a nominee legislator between
a council of advice and a representative legislature.
He doubted whether Wilmot had properly calculated the
difficulties which would follow the passing of the
estimates, or the sympathy which the six would receive
from the people. He censured mildly the accusation
of disloyalty, but at the same time he stated the quarrel
with the six was in no degree the cause of the recall.
In his last address to the council
Wilmot alluded to the benign influence of time on
a slandered reputation. This was soon after explained.
Mr. Secretary Gladstone had accompanied the recall
with a private letter which stated that rumors reflecting
on the governor’s moral character had reached
the colonial-office, of a nature to hinder his future
employment. Nothing specific was stated, and no
clue to enquiry given. Rumors had been long current,
and they were spread with activity. The Atlas,
a Sydney journal, compared the governor to the tyrant
of Capreae, and referred to his private habits
with expressions of disgust. Remarks of a similar
tendency appeared in a London periodical. It
stated that the conduct of Wilmot excluded the respectable
inhabitants of Hobart from his society, and made it
impossible for ladies to enter his house. This
was instantly rebutted by Sir John Pedder and other
official persons, who declared their entire disbelief
in these charges.
Wilmot conjured Mr. Gladstone to state
the time, place, and circumstances, the names of his
accusers, and the exact nature of their imputations.
In reply he observed that the persons who mentioned
these rumors did not profess to support their credit
by any statement of particulars, but to found them
on general notoriety. He added that it “was
not in his power to convey what he had not received.”
In the House of Commons a fuller explanation was afterwards
given, in a discussion raised by Mr. Spooner, a Warwickshire
member. It was then stated that the authors of
the report were persons in the service of the crown,
both in England and in the colony, and its effect,
that the accused was living in scarcely concealed
concubinage with several women. These preposterous
imputations melted away the moment they were touched.
Sir Robert Peel, an old neighbor of Wilmot, was highly
displeased with the interference of Mr. Gladstone,
and pronounced the charges unworthy of belief.
The eldest son of Wilmot appealed to Earl Grey for
a formal vindication, but he declined expressing an
opinion, although earnestly pressed; and excused himself
by alleging that, independently of this charge, there
was ample justification of the recall. It would
have been no great stretch of generosity had a minister
admitted that rumors set up as a bar to employment
were no longer barriers to the confidence of the crown.
Mr. Chester, a brother of Lady Wilmot, transmitted
an address presented to Sir Eardley to the Bishop
of Tasmania, for his remarks. He replied he could
not tell to what reports it alluded, and could not
contradict them; but that rumors of the kind had fallen
under his observation which he had proved to be groundless:
charges had been whispered, but none had been substantiated
(May, ’47).
The reports in disparagement of Wilmot
originated in the freedom of his address perfectly
innocent in itself, but liable to misconstruction.
The credit they received depended entirely on the party
sympathies of the listener, and they grew as they
went. No one, however, attached much importance
to them on the spot. Mr. Gladstone was condemned
for entertaining them. He seems more worthy of
censure for his indefinite method of stating their
nature and the authority on which they rested.
The moral character of a governor is of moment to a
colony, and a just consideration in his appointment;
but when assailed it should certainly have all the
protection of a full and open enquiry.
No governor ever was more unfortunate
in his political position. He could only tax
and restrain. There was nothing in his gift.
To the substantial difficulties of the people around
him he was unable to offer more than those general
assurances which often exasperate rather than console.
The state of religious parties increased his disquiet.
He had to adjust the claims of churches to spiritual
authority. In declining to erect ecclesiastical
courts Wilmot not only gratified many, but he followed
the direction of his legal advisers.
Sir Eardley Wilmot, like most governors,
considered himself the servant of the crown, restrained
in his discretion by absolute and specific instructions.
Had Lord Stanley acted with prudence he would have
left much to Wilmot’s judgment; but just before
he had dilated with vast perspicacity on the tendency
of governors to act in behalf of the colonists, to
forget imperial interests, to misapply the funds and
pervert the labor belonging to the crown. The
precision of his injunctions left no alternative but
to obey. Had Wilmot at once declared the impracticability
of Lord Stanley’s schemes he might have been
recalled, but the responsibility of an utter failure
would have rested with his chief. The interested
reports of his subordinate officers unfortunately
enabled him to hold out hopes of success which were
never realised and to furnish an excuse for his condemnation.
The governor was impatient of contradiction.
He had been accustomed to debate; but the sarcasm
which falls harmless on the floor of St. Stephen’s
Chapel, in a colony cuts to the bone. He forgot
that the head of a government can hardly say too little
of men or measures. In a conflict of words, to
an executive chief victory and defeat are alike pernicious.
The usual order had been given that
the governor, during his residence in the colony,
should enjoy the complimentary distinctions of office.
It was commonly understood that his stay would be
prolonged; but he died soon after his retirement (Fe, 1847), in the sixty-fourth year of his age.
The treatment he had received from the colonial-office,
and his death far from the honored sepulchre of his
fathers and the scenes of his early political fame,
produced a general sentiment of regret. All the
houses of business showed marks of mourning. A
public funeral, attended by the administrator and
the newly-arrived governor, was thronged by the citizens.
It had been officially arranged that, except the ministering
priest, the clergy of all denominations should walk
in their several classes, but in one body, and the
archdeacon, the moderator, and the vicar-general,
as representatives of the three endowed churches,
abreast. The Anglican clergy evaded this plan
by stepping up before the coffin. When, however,
the bearers were in motion, the catholic priests,
by a rapid evolution, shot a-head of the procession.
An ornamented Gothic tomb was erected in St. David’s
burial-ground to the memory of Sir Eardley Wilmot by
subscription. It stands near the highway.
His remains were interred close to the tomb of Collins.
Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot was
descended from the ancient family of Eardley of Audely,
Staffordshire. He was grandson of Wilmot, lord
chief justice of the court of common pleas a
judge celebrated for justice and piety. Sir E.
Wilmot was twice married, first to Elizabeth,
daughter of Dr. Parry, of Bath; and afterwards to
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir R. Chester, of Bush Hall,
Staffordshire.
Charles Joseph Latrobe, Esq., Superintendent
of the Port Phillip District, and subsequently first
governor of that territory, now called Victoria, superseded
Sir E. Wilmot (October 13, 1846). During his short
stay as “administrator” he was employed
in a careful scrutiny of the probation department.
In performing this difficult duty he displayed exemplary
activity and decision. He resolved to remove every
officer chargeable with incapacity or neglect, and
thus many were dismissed. This promptitude exposed
him to imputations of harshness; but although it is
probable he did not wholly escape errors of judgment,
the chief acts of his administration were amply vindicated
by the facts he saw. The opinions he expressed
sustained the colonial impressions respecting the
convict system. While he suggested many improvements
in its details, he concurred with the general wish
for its extinction. Mr. Latrobe never met the
legislative council; and his government being limited
to the established routine, left nothing to record.