SECTION I.

Sir William Thomas Denison, Knight, Captain of the Royal Engineers, presented his commission, January 26th, 1847. He had been employed in the dock-yards, and in the survey of important public works. His eminent abilities in a department connected with the employment of prisoners, not less than his respectable connexions, led to his nomination. His professional habits had not qualified him equally for civil affairs; but the chief object proposed by the minister, Mr. Gladstone, was the better disposal of prison labor, and the more effectual control of the convicts. Sir William entered on his office with less acclamation than usual. The changes had been too rapid and unfortunate to encourage much enthusiasm.

Before his embarkation the secretary of state instructed Sir W. Denison to arrange the dispute with the late councillors, and the claims of the gentlemen who occupied their places after their resignation. He was informed that the conduct of both sets of legislators had received the royal approbation. It was left to his discretion to select six out of the whole number to complete the council. They were summoned to the government-house to hear the minister’s decision, and were requested to decide among themselves who should be honored with a seat. This experiment failed. An altercation ensued, and some quitted the conference. The “six” adhered to each other, and Sir W. Denison ultimately declared the appointments of Wilmot were disallowed, and re-appointed the “patriotic six.” The gentlemen rejected were advised that they held their office until superseded by commands under the sign-manual. In this opinion the chief justice concurred; but, pursuing the scrutiny, it was found that some nominations of Wilmot had been informal, the instrument not stating to whom they succeeded. Their claims being quashed by this discovery, the “patriotic six” were again appointed in succession to each other, a transposition required by the law. At this stage, however, Mr. Orr, who entered the council some time after the rupture, produced his appointment, which, unlike certain others, was expressed in the legal form. Thus again all the previous proceedings were quashed; and the governor, unable to unravel the difficulty, dismissed the council, to await instructions from Downing-street, or a warrant for the nominees under the sign-manual of the Queen (July, 1847). Thus during 1847 there was no legislature sitting, but at length the Gazette announced that the Queen had reinstated the original six (1848).

It has been seen that under the government of Sir E. Wilmot an act was passed to restrict the increase of dogs, and another levying 15 per cent. duties. The owners of dogs were required to take out a license, and the proceeds of the tax were carried to the general revenue. Some of the settlers never complied with this ordinance, and others paid under protest. According to the opinion of several lawyers the council by this enactment had exceeded its powers. The act of parliament by which the council was constituted contained a provision to the effect that a tax should be levied only for local purposes, “to be distinctly and particularly stated in the body of the bill.” It was contended that the restriction was violated, since the Dog Act contained no specific appropriation, and the amount was carried to the general revenue. The government, willing to avoid the trial of this point, did not hasten to enforce the penalty. It was understood that Judge Montagu had not obtained a license for dogs on his premises, and Mr. Morgan, then editor of the Britannia, announced to the government that he was an owner of dogs, that he had paid no license fee, and intended to pay none. The chief constable was directed to recover the penalties. Mr. Morgan being fined, appealed to the quarter sessions, and then to the supreme court. The judges, having heard the arguments of counsel, declared that the Dog Act imposed a tax and exceeded the powers of the council. They therefore annulled the decision of the inferior courts (No, 1847).

The views which dictated this judgment affected a more important act the Differential Duties. Several merchants paid these charges under protest, and entered their suit for recovery. A revenue of L20,000 per annum was thus in peril. It was stated by the governor and crown lawyers that the judges themselves had passed the lawful limits of their jurisdiction, unsettled the whole body of colonial law, encouraged opposition to the government, and exposed its agents to vexatious prosecutions. The governor was determined to resist their judgment. The warrants for the members of the council had not arrived. Thus recourse to the legislature was impracticable, and the most obvious remedy was the removal of the judges, and the substitution of others, whose opinions were known to agree with the executive. The judges were charged, therefore, with a neglect of duty in omitting, as authorised by the law, to certify illegality in the Act prior to its enrolment; and by permitting the question of an act of council, they were said to override the legislature.

Pending this dispute, a creditor of Mr. Justice Montagu sued him for L200. The privilege of his office presented a legal obstacle to the suit. This being decided by the chief justice, the creditor applied to the governor for relief. Mr. Montagu alleged an understanding, which in equity released him from immediate liability. The governor charged him with perverting the protection of his office, to defeat his creditors, and amoved him. Mr. Horne, the attorney-general, who framed the acts repudiated by the judges, was appointed to succeed Judge Montagu, and it became a question whether his opinion would send the merchants out of court. The registrar of the supreme court was called before the executive council, and questioned on the point. He stated that in the event of a division of opinion on the bench a verdict for the plaintiff would stand. To the suspension of the chief justice the executive council were opposed, and Sir Wm. Denison therefore requested the judge to relieve the government by asking leave of absence. To this he replied in terms suited to the respectability of his character. “Were I,” said his honor, “to accept your excellency’s proposal, I should, it appears to me, be for ever after degraded, and, ipso facto, render myself unworthy of holding the lowest office or employment which it is in her Majesty’s power to bestow on a subject." At this stage of the proceedings the warrant constituting the legislative councillors reached the governor, and the opinion of the chief justice was of less moment to the executive.

It now remained for the governor to annul either the laws opposed to the provisions of the parliamentary act, which declared the taxing clauses illegal, or to subvert those restrictions by declaring them inoperative. He chose this last course. The Doubts Bill declared that an ordinance once enrolled, whatever its provisions, or however repugnant to common law or parliamentary acts, should be held binding on the court; and although its rejection was proposed by the chief justice and five other members, it passed the legislative council.

That the “Doubts Bill,” so called, was inconsistent with the limitations of the council, has been virtually determined by a retrospective clause in the recent constitutional act, which cures the defect of these taxing clauses, and takes the question of legality from the future judgment of the court. By the act of 9 Geo. IV., se, the governor possessed powers sufficiently ample to pass, without notice or delay, any measure, and to adhere to its provisions in a pressing emergency; but the prohibition of taxes, for all but strictly local purposes, was peremptory and explicit.

An instance of rapid legislation contemplated by the act, occurred (1843) when Dr. Turnbull held the office of sheriff. More cautious than his predecessor, he closely examined his commission, and discovered that the seal of the colony had been attached, and not that of the governor, as required by the charter of justice. This error had been made in successive commissions for many years. Every execution criminal or civil had been therefore illegal. At one sitting of the council the act of indemnity was passed, and all proceedings affected by the mistake were declared valid. The propriety of this promptitude was indisputable.

The chief justice left the representation of his conduct to the governor. His treatment was the subject of keen censure in the commons; and by an unpublished despatch the nature, not the terms of which transpired Sir Wm. Denison was informed, and through him, the chief justice, that his conduct to this judge was decidedly reprehended by the crown. Mr. Horne’s appointment and the amoval of Mr. Montagu were confirmed. Mr. Justice Montagu was an acute, eloquent, and impartial judge, but passionate and eccentric. His imprudence exposed him to a proceeding which, in the circumstances, it is difficult to approve, and, on general principles, not easy to condemn. The chief justice stood still higher in public estimation. For nearly thirty years he occupied a station of awful responsibility with a reputation unsullied, in a court where every variety of legal knowledge has been in demand and a vast amount of toil endured. Among the blessings which the British constitution bestows foremost of all is the freedom of the judgment-seat; and few political faults are less capable of palliation than a deliberate attempt to subject a judge to the influence of the executive.

A minute addressed to the legislative council charged the merchants with forgetting the duty they owed to society, when they offered resistance to the tax. They, however, maintained that every illegal demand is spoliation, and claimed a right to protect themselves and the public from its operation. Fifteen hundred persons signed a petition deprecating the interference of the executive with the supreme court. They asserted their conviction that the removal of Judge Montagu was occasioned by his decision on the Dog Act, and the desire to replace him by a more pliant judge. These various remonstrances had no effect on the ministers, and the entire course of the governor was approved, except the attempted coercion of the chief justice. The position of the government was one of considerable embarrassment. It was the unquestionable right of those affected to oppose the execution of illegal ordinances; but no blame would have rested with the governor had he amended them without removing the land-marks of the colonial constitution.

A minute acquaintance with colonial history would justify the belief that appeal to Downing-street against the conduct of governors is utterly futile. When the dispute is between persons high in office the established policy does not predicate the result; but when a mere colonist complains he will find no precedent in Australian experience to cheer him in his task. Gross instances of oppression have not infrequently occurred; but in the Australian journals of half a century no example is recorded of a governor’s recall on such grounds, or of such a censure on his conduct as might influence the habits of colonial rulers. An opposite course would be inconvenient perhaps dangerous. As a choice of evils, it is better that the colonists should despair of redress than to encourage the discontented to harrass the representative of the crown. A result so invariable, however, proves that a colonial-office cannot protect the Australian people. This futility of appeal is more striking when the local authorities are protected by a laborious despatch writer. The subtle arrangement of facts and inferences suggests without appearing to dictate the judgment of the office. These papers first fall into the hands of subordinate officials, who feel a natural antipathy to colonists, whose established character is turbulent, rapacious, and democratic. In the multiplicity of business, comprehending the affairs of forty colonies, the responsible minister can know little of details, and that little he must rapidly forget. Thus, when a question is proposed, he asks time to refresh his memory. A pungent passage or epithet, wholly irrelevant to the real merits of the dispute, is drawn from these documents. It was thus when the quarrel between the executive and judges was debated in the house. The minister, having read in a despatch that the decision of the judge would disorganise the body of law, represented the colony as a scene of turbulence, when not a single step had been taken but the courts of Westminster would have approved. But the house was equally ill informed. It readily acquiesced: the conversation dropped, and the despatch triumphed. No governors have stood so high in the colonial-office as despatch writers; whether that ability in epistolary correspondence implies general superiority, or that they beguile the minister of his judgment by the subtlety or wisdom of their political disquisitions.

The petitions for representative government, repeated for more than twenty years, and which strongly interested the sympathy of all classes, were renewed with increasing hope of success from 1846 to 1850. The ministers, though admitting the abstract value of the privilege, hesitated while the great preponderance of convicts seemed to require an absolute authority. This feeling was not overcome until the accession of Lord Grey, who saw no danger in conceding to the free population the common rights of Englishmen. A variety of plans were submitted at different times to the parliament and ministry, to secure colonial representation. Mr. Joseph Hume suggested (1832) the admission of a certain number of representatives chosen in the colonies to seats in the House of Commons; in all nineteen, one being for Australia, a measure once suggested for the old American colonies; but the distance in both cases, and expenses of transit, would not easily have admitted effective representation or perfect responsibility. Sir John Franklin suggested (1839) a legislature, to consist of twenty-one members, one third nominated by the crown, and the remainder elected by persons holding the qualification of common jurors. He gave a generous testimony to the intelligence and probity of the settlers, and alleged that they would bear comparison with corresponding classes within any dominions of the crown.

In 1843 the legislature of New South Wales was constituted. Originally a nominee council, the popular element was infused by two thirds being elective members. A civil list was reserved, and the disposal of territorial revenues withheld; but the partial liberty enjoyed was used with discretion and effect. The bill enjoined the establishment of district councils, authorised to superintend internal affairs, and to fulfil many of the functions of municipal bodies. They were, however, never called into action. The scattered inhabitants found it difficult to assemble, and more so to reconcile their neighbors to local taxation. The machinery of the councils was set in motion only to defeat their design. Thus the legislative body retained in its hands the whole power which it had been intended to balance and check by the petty councils. Port Phillip, however, then a part of New South Wales, but more distant from the metropolis than England from Rome, was represented in a council sitting at Sydney. The loss of time required disinclined most gentlemen to undertake the representation, and those chosen were chiefly resident in New South Wales proper. Their numbers were too small for effectual action, and their sympathies were divided between their constituents and their neighbors. The revenues raised at Victoria were expended to some extent in the elder city, and the superintendent of Port Phillip had little influence and less power in the government. The popular dissatisfaction, which led to some unavailing petitions to the crown, took a curious form. Thus, in 1848, the electors met at the hustings and discountenanced the appearance of a candidate, and after waiting an hour, the returning officer announced that no member had been returned. On meeting for the election of a member for the city Earl Grey was chosen. The governor and superintendent considered this proceeding a disgraceful farce. The law officers could not question its legality, and the secretary of state was for two years member for Melbourne, without, however, taking his seat. Mr. Westgarth, a merchant of tried intelligence and public spirit, was chosen afterwards, and was presented to the house “in the room of the Right Hon. Henry Grey, Earl Grey.”

Sir Wm. Denison was instructed to report on the subject of an elective legislature for Van Diemen’s Land. He furnished Lord Grey with various opinions and suggestions. He had recommended a frame-work, the counterpart of the New South Wales assembly, only, however, that he deemed it undesirable for colonies so contiguous to differ in their institutions. The experience of the Tasmanian legislative council had, he asserted, assisted him in forming an opinion on the character of the people. “When we see,” said Sir William, “the low estimate which is placed upon every thing which can distinguish a man from his fellows, with the sole exception of wealth; when we see that even wealth does not lead to distinction, or open the road to any other ambition save that of excelling in habits of self-indulgence, it can be hardly a subject of surprise that so few rise above the general level, or that those few owe more to the possession of a certain oratorical facility than to their powers of mind or the justness of the opinions they advocate.” “There is an essentially democratic spirit, which actuates a large mass of the community; and it is with a view to check the development of this spirit that I would suggest the formation of an upper chamber.” Sir William Denison suggested that bishops might be members of an upper house, and certain ex officio representatives of government; the rest, whether nominated by the crown or elected by the people, to hold their seats for life.

By a despatch to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, Earl Grey expounded a new constitutional system for the colonies. It was zealously opposed in New South Wales. The people complained that the change in the constitution without their consent was an infringement of their vested rights, and disrespectful to their legislature. They objected strongly to a plan which made the district councils the electors of the assembly. They repudiated the statement that their legislature had absorbed all the powers of “the colonial state,” and the checks and balance contemplated by the original constitutional act. These views were sustained by the legislature itself. The idea of two chambers was approved by the majority, but most elected members were against it.

The plans of Earl Grey and the correspondence and petitions they produced were referred to the committee of the Privy Council, and the report adopted recognised all the great principles of British government except the full control of the expenditure (1849). This able paper recommended legislative councils for all colonies capable of supporting a civil list, one third nominees, and the remainder chosen by the people. The division of the legislature into separate chambers it resigned to the judgment of the colonies. It suggested a federal assembly for the general interest of the Australias, having its action closely defined. The “House of Delegates,” to consist of not less than twenty nor more than thirty, were distributed to each colony two, and one additional for every fifteen-thousand souls. This plan of government was differently regarded in different colonies. The elder condemned its restrictions: the younger rejoiced in the prospect of new franchises, and trusted to time to enlarge their liberties. The general opinion of intelligent men was favorable to the division of the legislature, but the colonies were not capable of supplying the elements of nobility. Some aspiring persons desired a little house of peers, others the appointment of senators by the crown, and for life: a greater number were convinced that the legislature should be elective throughout. The social equality of settlers who landed together could not be forgotten in the diversities of their colonial fortune. The first collision of opinion would bring the machinery of double chambers to a dead lock, and no interposing power could adjust the dislocated frame-work. A stoppage of supplies would follow the first impulses of resentment. In English representation it is the last remedy, but then it betokens the dismissal of a minister or the downfall of a dynasty.

The colonial press generally approved the ministerial bill, not as a measure approaching perfection, but for some favorite object it was calculated to hasten. It was hailed at Port Phillip because it secured separation from Sydney; at South Australia, as certain to terminate the ecclesiastical endowments; and in Van Diemen’s Land it was welcomed, with all its faults, as the engine sure to destroy transportation. Thus the Colonial Reform Society, which attempted to defeat the government measure, found little sympathy beyond New South Wales, where the change gave nothing. The ministers interpreted the satisfaction of the colonies as a testimony to their skill, not detestation of their government. The real cause of colonial delight was the severance of their chains, and the certainty that when broken all the power of Europe could never renew them.

The bill suffered some mutilations in its passage to the throne. The federal clauses were expunged. The local governors were opposed to the establishment of an assembly of delegates, which would have overruled their individual policy. They were fearful of compromising their revenues by permitting to New South Wales the preponderance of members. These objections, not indeed without weight, and, still more, the jealousy of the conservatives of an organisation which seemed but a prelude to independence, despoiled the measure of a provision which, however modified, must be ultimately restored. A reduction of the franchise of the bill from L20 to L10, nearly equal to household suffrage, was, however, the most considerable change. It was suggested by Mr. R. Lowe, to bear down an opulent emancipist interest in New South Wales. It was expected to give irresistible power to that class in Van Diemen’s Land. The bill was carried through the lords by a trifling majority in a thin house. The fate of a young empire but slightly moved the British peerage. It received the royal assent, August 5th, 1850.

When the bill arrived the joy of Port Phillip was unbounded. Several days were devoted to processions and feasting. Numberless devices were exhibited, displaying the political bias of the people. Many thousand pounds were spent in the festivities. A similar though less magnificent display was made in Van Diemen’s Land. All ranks were inclined to forget their differences, and public dinners, at which many hundreds were guests, celebrated the constitutional victory.

Lord John Russell, on the second reading of the bill, explained his opinions, which, whether or not consistent with the ministerial measure, were worthy his station and political renown. “I anticipate with others,” he said, “that some of our colonies may so grow in wealth and population that they may feel themselves strong enough to maintain their own independence in amity and alliance with Great Britain. I do not think that that time is yet approaching. But let us make them, as fast as possible, fit to govern themselves. Let us give them, as far as we can, the capacity of ruling their own affairs. Let them increase in wealth and population; and, whatever may happen, we of this great empire will have the consolation of saying that we have increased the happiness of the world.” Such sentiments tend to extinguish the desire to quit a political connection rendered honorable by terms so nobly expressed by the first minister of the crown, and which, if fairly carried out, will make the colonies cling with fondness to a nation so magnanimous as to greet them with applause.

In 1846-7 important additions were made to the educational means of the colony. An episcopal institution, called Christ’s College, was formed at Bishopsbourne. Scholarships were founded by the medical, military, and clerical professions, and divinity fellowships endowed (1846). Lord Stanley recommended the establishment of a proprietary high school, open on equal terms to all denominations, and promised the patronage of the crown. The site reserved for this purpose at Hobart Town was granted by Sir W. Denison to the episcopalians, for the Hutchins’ school. This alienation was deemed unjust. Instead, however, of wasting time in unavailing complaints, the friends of education were convened by Mr. H. Hopkins, an opulent merchant, when a prospectus was submitted by the Rev. Dr. Lillie and J. West. A thousand pounds were subscribed in the room, and in five weeks L5000 (1847). The first conspicuous object seen by the stranger on entering the river is the High School of Hobarton, an edifice erected amidst enchanting scenery, on a site granted by the crown, and possessing architectural attractions which have yet to be equalled in this hemisphere. The institution is managed by a council of nine, chosen by the shareholders. The Rector, nominated by the London University, was the Rev. J. B. Froude, author of the “Nemesis of Faith,” a publication which led to his instant resignation. James Eccleston, Esq., appointed in his stead, survived the opening of the school only one month. A thousand pounds were subscribed for his widow.

Thus the activity of private zeal effected the objects contemplated by legislative interference. The growth of population will give ample scope for these various institutions, and extinguish all but a wholesome rivalry.

SECTION II.

It now remains to record the most important colonial agitation of modern times. The opposition of Van Diemen’s Land to a system reprobated by mankind too long despised awakened everywhere resistance to transportation; and, assisted by the discovery of gold fields of vast extent and opulence, will change the penal policy of the British empire.

In the progress of the struggle all classes ranged on the same side. Parents thought of their children patriots of their country. Every legislature of this hemisphere has expressed the popular will and demanded abolition, and the final triumph only awaits the fiat of the crown. The steps of the colonists have been cautious and deliberate, their perseverence and energy indomitable! Their success has been chequered by frequent disappointment, but never was a battle more nobly fought never was there a cause more worthy of triumph.

Mr. McLachlan, long a resident in Van Diemen’s Land, judged the plans of Lord Stanley by the test of experience, and warned the minister of their too certain results. Other colonists in England corroborated his views and enforced his representation. Mr. Smith, a colonist of long standing, obtained an audience at Downing-street. He described the social dangers which environed the settlers. “I confess,” said the noble lord, “that you are in an awful position.”

The representation forwarded by Mr. Pitcairn and his coadjutors was intrusted to Mr. M’Lachlan’s care. The press of England took the side of the oppressed, and the inexorable office was obliged to listen, to argue, and retract.

There was, however, one result of his scheme which moved the susceptibilities of Lord Stanley himself. He shrank from the “intolerable evils of a breach of faith” with the exiles of Great Britain. They had been encouraged to expect high wages and ready employment. Such was the fair reward offered. Far other was their actual lot. “Thousands of prisoners,” said an official representation, “are going about idle, polluting the atmosphere in which they move. Is it to be wondered at that the Pentonville men should fall?" The extreme social degradation and demoralising contamination to which they were exposed in Van Diemen’s Land, and the disheartening difficulties they had to contend with, were utterly incompatible with the spirit of Lord Stanley’s despatch. This “breach of the public faith” was promptly repaired by a new series of projects.

Sir Charles Fitz Roy and Sir E. Wilmot, assisted by Mr. Latrobe, were instructed to select a site whither to send exiles, there to remain while awaiting hire or voluntary emigration: conditional pardons which gave liberty in Van Diemen’s Land, were made available in all the colonies.

The formation of a new settlement was the grand expedient. Vessels bringing convicts to Van Diemen’s Land were to convey ticket holders to North Australia. Happily for the world this project was defeated. A squatter hired exiles in England, with the sanction of the minister. A demand for labor sprung up. Sir George Gipps informed the secretary of state that from Moreton Bay to Melbourne exiles would be welcome. This Mr. Latrobe confirmed (1845). The settlers associated to bring expirees from Van Diemen’s Land. Many shiploads were deported at L1 per head. Thus the difficulty appeared at an end. The Maitland, engaged for North Australia, was diverted to Port Phillip. The men were promptly employed. The considerable flockmasters were desirous of a regular supply, while the colonists in general were far less cordial. Opposition was, however, languid; and the occasional apathy of the public and the indecision of the press were construed as assent.

While the home and colonial governments were constructing and dissolving systems, the idea of abolition was started by the press. “The settlers,” said the Examiner, “may not be prepared for this. Our own impression is that they are not; but it is our firm opinion that at no distant day the unanimous voice of the community will say, in a tone not to be disregarded, cease transportation for ever.” (March, 1844.) Events a few months after still more forcibly pointed to this issue.

Mr. M’Lachlan, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, put the case of Van Diemen’s Land in a striking aspect. “Shall the fairest isle in the south be converted into one huge gaol? shall the free inhabitants be made the passive instruments of punishing these criminals? Is this the only capacity in which the British government will recognise the free colonists? The petitioners have laid their case before the legislature. They trust they have not appealed in vain that they will not be driven from a land where the best days of many of them have been spent” (February, 1846).

The petition prepared by Mr. Pitcairn was presented in the lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne (March, 1846). In remarking on its contents, Lord Stanley begged their lordships to believe that the question involved interests more important than a single colony! He stated that Van Diemen’s Land could not be swamped by an annual influx of four thousand. If, he said, the thirty thousand persons released from the prisons of France were so intolerable, what must be the condition of England with sixty thousand expirees then settled in the colonies? Van Diemen’s Land was always a penal colony, and he saw no reason that it should be otherwise. Earl Grey warmly censured this policy, and complained “that no hope of relief from the frightful evils of transportation had been afforded.” He stated that he was “prepared to express an opinion that transportation should be got rid of. He had long entertained that opinion, and had never seen the arguments of the Archbishop of Dublin refuted.” A duplicate of this petition, presented to the Commons, was followed by the motion of Mr. Ewart, “That it is inexpedient to make Van Diemen’s Land the sole receptacle of convicts, and that transportation be abolished, except as a supplement to penal discipline” (May, 1846). The day chosen was inauspicious. The “house” was gone to the Epsom races. Mr. Hudson, the railway king, not better employed, stumbled into the chapel of St. Stephen, and counted out the members. Mr. Ewart renewed his motion (July 6). A few days before Earl Grey and Mr. Hawes had obtained the command of the colonies, they admitted the facts of the petition, and promised redress. The liberal principles avowed by the new government reassured the friends of Van Diemen’s Land. Mr. Gladstone had determined to arrest the influx of convicts for two years: this was approved by his successor. In quashing the North Australian colony, Earl Grey stated his dissent from the principles on which it had been founded (September 30, 1846). The whigs ever expressed a decided abhorrence of penal colonisation and the collection of masses cradled in the traditions of crime. When taunted with this accumulation in Van Diemen’s Land as the result of his policy of 1840, Lord John Russell explained: “As to the sending of convicts to Van Diemen’s Land, he had intended to adopt the policy recommended in the work of the Archbishop of Dublin. Had his plan been carried out, instead of 4,000 convicts sent to Van Diemen’s Land there would not have been more than five or six hundred.”

When Earl Grey instructed Sir William Denison in reference to certain reforms, he intimated his expectation that transportation would terminate. Soon after Sir William Denison addressed to the magistrates of the territory a series of enquiries (March, 1847), of which the first was awfully momentous. “Do you consider it desirable that transportation of convicts to this country should cease altogether?” The character of the enquiry was described in a letter signed by the private secretary. The governor preferred communicating with these gentlemen, and by them with their neighbours, rather than with popular assemblies. It was not, however, to be expected that a subject of direct and universal concern would be resigned to the discussion of a single class; nor did persons holding magisterial distinctions, on that account command the confidence of the people. This was felt by the magistrates themselves. A preliminary meeting was convened at Hobart Town to discuss the subject of the circular. A difference of opinion was apparent, and an angry altercation ensued. Mr. Carter, a storekeeper, defended transportation as necessary to trade. Mr. Gregson advised his auditors to cast the question of crocks and slops to the wind, and to secure at once the final liberation of the colony. A public meeting was held at Hobart Town. Ineffectual attempts to postpone the question by the advocates of transportation were offered, and the speakers on the popular side were loudly cheered. The party defeated signed a memorial representing that they were not heard at the meeting, and repudiating its decision. Sir William Denison promised to place it in the hands of Earl Grey “as a record to be employed in the support of the facts it contained.”

This second petition, adopted by the colony (6th May, 1847), was also drawn up by Mr. Pitcairn. The editors of the London Morning Chronicle remarked “That they never read a public document more calculated to command both the convictions and sympathies of those whom it addresses. Future ages would contemplate with amazement the fact that wrongs so cruel in their nature, and so enormous in their amount, have been inflicted in civilized times.” It recapitulated the grievances of the colony with energy and clearness. It complained that promises of relief had proved fallacious that the worst evils of transportation were continued; that there were then four thousand prisoners more in the colony than were ever at one time in New South Wales, and that 12,000 free persons had quitted the country since 1841. The petition asked for representative government, the abolition of transportation, and the importation of 12,000 free immigrants at the expense of Great Britain; and it recommended the removal of the men to the colony of North Australia, or wherever they might be required. Meetings were held by different classes in several districts of the colony. In the most populous the feeling decidedly favored abolition. Not the least important of the series were held in Launceston. Six magistrates of the north determined to advise with the colonists at large. The persons who assembled at their call were undecided; the friends of abolition desired delay; its determined opponents deprecated public discussion; but to the majority deliberation seemed necessary, and on the motion of Mr. Dry a committee was constituted who were requested to collect evidence, to make a report, and draft a reply to the circular of the governor. The tradesmen of that public spirited community first expressed their sentiments. A few transportationists induced a respectable shopkeeper to propose thirty-nine reasons for the continuance of transportation, but the warmth of his elocution and the frequent repetition of “because” in an Aberdeen accent, dissolved his party in laughter. The good humoured logician acquiesced in the voice of the assembly and abandoned the cause of transportation for ever. The meeting convened of the northern colonists assembled on the 10th of May. The committee appointed on the 3d of April having prepared a report, and founded on its conclusions a reply to the circular, it was signed by the chairman, James Cox, Esq., of Clarendon. Many who were formerly advocates for transportation as it once existed, saw its dangers when they became anxious for the moral and social welfare of their sons. They were formerly but flockmasters, but they had become the founders of a state. They learned from the discussions of the ministers that what they had thought a service rendered to the crown was deemed disgraceful and degrading. Opulent settlers who visited Europe found it convenient to conceal their home, and some less prudent were repelled with unconquerable distrust. In a small community the public reputation is of personal importance, and it was alleged that to neglect the offer of social freedom would be infamy unexampled. To this feeling the abolitionists appealed. “Parents of Van Diemen’s Land,” said the author of a pamphlet called Common Sense, “can you hesitate? Let the timid and sordid doubt, let them reckon the farthing they may lose! Let your hearts dictate your answer to the circular. Let it be worthy Britons, Christians, and Parents. Shew that you prize your rights, and that you love your children. That land which they tell you will become a desert when the clank of chains, the cries of torture, the noise of riot, and the groans of despair shall be heard no longer, will not become a desert; ‘it will blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing,’ when your sons and daughters shall go forth, the free among the free. Consult your own understandings, that you may obey the dictates of your hearts. The Sovereign has invited you to express your desire. Let it not be one that will cause the eyes of mankind to look upon you with abhorrence, and turn away with contempt. Make not your name a scorn and a hissing! Perform your duty, AND SAVE YOUR ADOPTED COUNTRY!”

SECTION III.

The benefit derived from Mr. M’Lachlan’s efforts was apparent to all. But he was returning to Van Diemen’s Land. The New South Wales legislature engaged the Honourable F. Scott, M.P., to watch over their concerns. To this Lord Stanley demurred. He said a retainer for a colony was inconsistent with the standing obligations of a member of parliament, and that a committee to direct him would usurp the functions of the executive (1845). The old American colonies appointed agents: sometimes acting for only one branch of the legislature where there were two chambers. They were often members of parliament. Edmund Burke filled this office for the assembly of New York, with a salary of L500. The people of Van Diemen’s Land formed “The London Agency Association,” and appointed Mr. J. A. Jackson to represent them. Their proceedings were adopted by the colony, at a meeting called by the sheriff of Hobart Town; they did not however pretend to public authority, and they confined their attention to secular questions. The subscribers were called together at this crisis. By a vote, almost unanimous, they adopted a letter of instructions which directed Mr. Jackson to support the cause of total abolition. The London Agency Association expressed the opinions of the country gentlemen. There were several other organisations composed chiefly of tradesmen. In reference, however, to representation and abolition, all classes agreed.

The British Government seemed to anticipate the wishes of the colonists. A despatch (February 5, 1847,) from Earl Grey, printed in the blue book, informed the people that transportation to Van Diemen’s Land, except, indeed, as a part of the colonial empire, was finally terminated. There was nothing to prevent the arrival of exiles, when the state of the colony could admit of their dispersion amidst a free people, a condition explicitly required by the primary object of cessation. This despatch Sir William Denison laid on the table of the council, and while he noticed its harmony with the wishes of a large proportion of the free inhabitants, he exhorted them to beware of undue exultation or despondency whatever the issue of the measure, and in this crisis of their fate to confide in the goodness of God (July, 1847).

The views of the government were expounded in official letters and speeches in the British legislature. Stated with brevity they expressed a purpose to punish crime in England, and to assist the emigration to every British colony, individually rather than collectively, of men with conditional pardons. Sir George Grey asserted that the idea of resuming transportation to Van Diemen’s Land was illusory. He recommended that the governor should be instantly informed of its termination. He condemned the practice of sending many exiles to one place as likely to create a feeling of caste, and in time produce the evils of penal colonisation. With these views Earl Grey concurred (February 5, 1847). He stated that they agreed with his established opinion, and he thought that well trained convicts might be dispersed in the colonies, especially taking care to promote the emigration of a considerable number of persons untainted with crime. To the same effect was his exposition of the future policy in the House of Lords. He expressed a hope that exiles might be so distributed that the chance of recognition should be slight. Lord Brougham made merry at this notion of banishment as a game at which two could play, and depicted the consternation of Calais at an arrival of reformed Pentonvillians. The chief reliance of Earl Grey was on the demand for convict labor in the colonies, which he far too highly estimated. When the intentions of the home government were declared, Sir W. Denison, who had given opposite advice, hastened to recall his recommendation. He stated that to resume transportation in any shape would be looked upon as a breach of faith, and be very embarrassing to government (August 28, 1847).

The publication of Earl Grey’s policy occasioned general gladness and gratitude. But it was followed by a measure adverse to its whole spirit and the facts on which it had been founded (September, 1847). The governor was directed to remove the convicts at Norfolk Island to Van Diemen’s Land, and to receive those remaining in New South Wales not entitled to release. Drafts of transports were constantly arriving from every British dependency, and thus additions were daily made to the overwhelming convict population. The vices of the Norfolk Island prisoners had appalled the empire. The residuary convicts of New South Wales indicated their character by their long detention. Some were imprisoned in caverns dug in the rocks, and their depravity assumed the aspect of mania. The whole colony was roused by these projects. Meetings and memorials were multiplied. A deputation to the governor, then in Launceston, was attended by a long and excited procession. He concurred in their sentiments, suspended the progress of the scheme, and received the thanks of the colonists and the minister. The result was unimportant, for from Norfolk Island the convicts were silently transmitted to Van Diemen’s Land and distributed undistinguished.

Mr. Gladstone, when secretary for the colonies, addressed a confidential despatch to Sir C. Fitz Roy (April, 1846), and left its publication to his discretion. It proposed to renew transportation to New South Wales with the assent of the colonial legislature. This proposal was submitted to a committee of the council. A report was founded on the evidence of employers and forwarded to Earl Grey. It consented, conditionally; that two free persons should be sent at the expense of England for every prisoner, and that assignment should be revived. It admitted that the real welfare of the colony might be best promoted by the total stoppage of transportation to Australasia; and it yielded to a regulated and compensating scheme only as the alternative of indirect transportation. To give effect to the report, of which the adjournment of the legislative council prevented the consideration, Mr. Darvall and five hundred others presented a petition to the crown, which Earl Grey, “laid at the foot of the throne.” Earl Grey refused to restore assignment or to send two free persons for one in bonds; but he offered to send an equal number of each at the cost of the British treasury (September 3, 1847). After an earnest but limited opposition the proposal was accepted by the legislative council, and the vast territory of New South Wales opened to the dispersion of 5,000 prisoners per annum.

But Earl Grey himself departed from his own proposals (September, 1848). He alleged that the exchequer would not permit the execution of the emigration scheme, and that the demand for labour in the other British colonies to the full extent of the supply rendered the outlay unnecessary. Yet to satisfy the petitioners for convicts, some ships would be sent. But should the legislature insist, emigrants in equal numbers would follow them, and transportation terminate.

The adoption of this course was prompted by financial considerations, but especially by the offer of Sir William Denison to receive 4,000 convicts annually, and thus to disperse them over the continent. This offer had been cancelled in another despatch, but of this, although before him, Earl Grey took no notice. He described with great apparent elation, the character of reformed prisoners, and quoted a chaplain as his authority, who represented them in the most favorable light. They cheerfully endured exposure on the public works, to deter their fellow countrymen from crime, and overcame all their adversities by patience and prayer. To a variety of notions, all absurd and impracticable, and all speedily abandoned, he added, “Her Majesty’s government accordingly propose in future, with regard to all convicts, except those whose health may require different treatment, or whose sentences have been commuted for imprisonment, that, after having gone through the two first stages of punishment already adverted to, they should be removed as holders of tickets-of-leave to Van Diemen’s Land” (April 27, 1848).

Mr. Jackson obtained an interview with Earl Grey (Oct., 1848), and pointed out the injustice of this course. His lordship lamented the revival of transportation to Van Diemen’s Land, and said that it arose from unavoidable circumstances. He declared his adherence to the plan of dispersion, and his belief that South Africa, Port Phillip, and other colonies would afford an ample outlet for the prisoners. Circulars were accordingly sent to the Cape of Good Hope, the Mauritius, New Zealand, New South Wales, and Swan River. The Swan River colonists, a few hundreds in all, accepted the offer. South Australia refused. In New Zealand the people of both colors deprecated the plan. “Send us gentlemen,” said the chiefs, “but send us no convicts.”

Before replies could arrive, Earl Grey resolved to attempt its execution. He began with the Cape of Good Hope: he thought that the military outlay for its defence entitled the crown to invade it with convicts. The Neptune, with ticket-holders from Ireland, anchored in Simon’s Bay: the inhabitants besought Sir Harry Smith to send her back. This he refused; but he expressed his entire sympathy with their opinions, and forwarded a despatch to that effect. He promised that not one should land without new orders from the secretary of state. The people, unwilling to depend on the justice of Earl Grey, formed a confederacy. They refused to hold intercourse with the government, or while the vessel remained on their coast to supply the commissariat, or to deal with any who violated this compact. Branch associations sprung up in every district: passes were issued to travellers to show they had not strayed from the Neptune. Every public body, civil and religious, sanctioned the resistance. The cause of the Cape was espoused by the British press. A motion was made in the Commons, by Mr. Adderley, amounting to a censure on the minister. Both Lord John Russell and Earl Grey promised to remove the grievance, and the Neptune was ordered to sail for Van Diemen’s Land (November 3, 1849). The inhabitants gave money to be distributed to the prisoners at their destination (February, 1850). This done, they joined in illuminations, public thanksgivings, and congratulatory addresses to the governor, who reproved their zeal, but rejoiced at their success. A prosecution of Mr. Fairbairn, for conspiracy to compel an unlawful act, was begun, but fell to the ground. A settler who supplied the government was honored with knighthood: an example was offered to the empire of passive but victorious resistance.

The despatch of Earl Grey repudiating his own stipulation excited the rage of New South Wales. Mr. Charles Cowper carried resolutions rejecting transportation in any form whatever through the legislative council without opposition. On the arrival of the Hashemy, a convict vessel, the inhabitants of Sydney to the number of some thousands assembled (June 11, 1849), and by a deputation to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, demanded that the prisoners should be sent away, if necessary at the colonial cost. Sir Charles was alarmed and increased his guards; he refused admittance to the deputation, and represented their constituents as a factious and feeble minority. The Randolph on a similar errand entered Port Phillip; the people resolved to oppose the landing. They applied to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, then on a visit to their district, to prevent their invasion. They were sustained by the forcible remonstrance of Mr. Latrobe, and the vessel was sent to another part of the territory.

No single cause will fully account for the intense and universal opposition to the plans of Earl Grey. The vacillation of his lordship in reference to the emigrant clause, produced feelings of exasperation and distrust, but the sad experience of Van Diemen’s Land was accepted as a warning by other portions of the empire. A pamphlet, recording the proceedings of the Tasmanian colonists, was everywhere scattered. It minutely examined the penal policy of the crown, and recorded the various demonstrations against convictism (June, 1847). A large package of this pamphlet was forwarded by the Launceston Association to the Cape of Good Hope, and arrived a few weeks before the Neptune. Thus foreign fuel was added to the local fire the testimony of men who had practically known the system, and by whom it was abhorred. The committee appointed by the Lords (1847), by the witnesses they examined, authenticated the evidence against it. The fate of Van Diemen’s Land did not command peculiar interest amidst the wreck of thrones and the overthrow of empires; but the supposed connection between the criminals and insurgents of France alarmed the aristocracy, and disposed them to cling to transportation. The Bishop of Tasmania bore testimony to its colonial mischief. Lord Brougham endeavored to draw admissions favorable to his views with professional acuteness; but he was foiled, and the bishop pronounced the solemn warning that those who cast a prisoner, especially a woman, into a community where criminal principles prevail, pronounce a sentence for both worlds.

The Tasmanian colonists were soon instructed by the press that the theory of dispersion was exploded. They were astonished to find fresh convict vessels hovering on their shores; but more still were they amazed to learn that Earl Grey seriously professed that by sending all the convicts to Van Diemen’s Land he substantially realised dispersion. He indeed promised to provide an equal amount of emigration, but they knew that these projects were illusive. They had before them the addition of convict ticket holders, by hundreds, to thousands and tens of thousands already in the colony; there to struggle with their predecessors for bread. Such was the prospect of 1848.

SECTION IV.

“I hope,” said Lord John Russell, “that when the house does come seriously to consider any bill having the question of transportation directly in view, it will consider the benefit of the colonies as well as of the mother country. I own I think it has been too much the custom both to pass acts imposing the penalty of transportation with a view rather to the convenience of this country than to the reformation of persons known to be of vicious habits, or to the interest of the colonies to which they were sent. We are bound to consider those interests likewise. We are bound when we are planting provinces, perhaps what may in future time be empires, to endeavour that they should not be merely seats of malefactors and of convicts, but communities fitted to set an example of virtue and happiness, and not to make plantations, as Lord Bacon says, of the scum of the land” (June, 1847). Such were the sentiments of the prime minister on penal colonisation. The secretary of the home department and the secretary for the colonies had been equally explicit. Could they really believe their own doctrine, when their practice was exactly opposite to its plainest dictates?

The revolution in the policy of the crown everywhere excited astonishment and indignation. The minister, who denounced penal colonisation as a national crime who had pleaded the cause of the colony and pledged the redress of its grievances who, in short, had professed himself a disciple of Archbishop Whately continued to pour convicts by thousands where for every free man there were two in bond. Destitute of legislative and physical power, the colonists could do nothing but deprecate. Every principal town and public body renewed their entreaties. To give them in full would be but to repeat statements of similar import. However variously expressed, they could scarcely deepen the unavoidable convictions of the world.

In their numerous petitions the colonists referred to the public joy which had greeted an offer of abolition, accepted not less as a signal interference of providence than as a proof of the equity of the British government. They slightly censured Sir William Denison who had called for four thousand convicts annually, against the petitions of 5,320 colonists, 624 parents and guardians, representing 3,355 souls; against the memorials of the clergy of every sect, the oldest magistrates, and most opulent settlers, and public meetings everywhere decisive, and they entreated deliverance from an experiment more hopeless than its predecessors. They reminded the government of Great Britain that the colony was now entitled to abolition, not only as a measure politic in itself, but as guaranteed by the deliberate and solemn promise of the minister, promulgated by the representative of the crown.

A massive volume would be insufficient to contain the petitions, letters, and despatches produced in this controversy. Colonists well qualified to maintain the popular cause devoted to this question the best years of life.

Sir William Denison, although opposed to one form of transportation, maintained its substance with a pertinacity which never wavered. He stood almost alone. He adopted the opinion that the supply of labor to the colonies of this hemisphere was within the special province of his government. The tendency of high wages to demoralise the workman and retard the prosperity of employers, are prominent topics in all his discourses and writings. Thus the masses of the people inferred that his schemes were hostile to their welfare, and that the depression of the working classes was a primary object of his policy. The opulent settlers had abandoned these considerations under the influence of higher aims. They were resolved to trust to the experience of other colonies where with a demand for labor a rapid enlargement of capital and diminished crime seemed to prove that the moral and material interests of the wealthy and industrial classes were not incompatible. The social recovery of the colony could only be effected by the influx of families, and a comfortable subsistence was indispensable to attract them. The arguments of the governor, addressed to momentary interests, were overpowered by a desire to stand on a level with free peoples. The disputants on both sides were in possession of facts favorable to their respective opinions. Whatever evils were proved against transportation, the labor it afforded had been long employed. Habit had reconciled the minds of many to its inferiority; and the means of supplying its place were confessedly contingent and remote. A new society, having no disabilities to remove, no moral stain to obliterate, and formed of elements in natural proportion, could not hesitate a moment. Economical experience would dictate the rejection of slaves. But to clear away the refuse of a long-existing social state, and to build anew, was a formidable undertaking, however certain of reward. Many landholders and masters foresaw the trials attending the transition, but were willing to encounter them to attain an object beyond all price. “We wish it,” said one of their manifestos, “to go forth to England, and to England’s Queen, that we are not expecting solicitation or waiting for bribes; but knowing what we do, and prizing as man must ever prize the sources of gain, our resolution is taken, relying on the sympathy of mankind, we cast ourselves on the goodness of Almighty God, and dare all hazards, that our children may be virtuous, and their country free.”

The expression of colonial feeling was accepted by most respectable dissentients as decisive. The settlers least averse to transportation were disgusted with the ever-changing views of the ministers. In the preceding ten years they had never known an hour’s repose. In ’38, the parliamentary committee condemned assignment. In ’40, Lord John Russell stopped transportation. In ’41, Captain Maconochie’s mark system was in the ascendant. In ’42, Lord Stanley’s probation scheme sprang up. In ’45, Mr. Gladstone projected the North Australian colony for ticket-holders. In ’46, Earl Grey propounded the Tasmanian convict village scheme. In ’47, he announced total abolition. In ’48, another complete revolution took place, and all convicts were to be sent to Van Diemen’s Land. This extravagance of upstart theory and fitful experiment without end, all tended to check colonial enterprise and destroy the public tranquillity.

In whatever sense Earl Grey announced abolition in ’47, it was clear that free emigration was essential to his plan when he proposed to resume it in ’48. The funds he assigned for this purpose were sums, the cost of their exile to be exacted from ticket-holders as the price of freedom. But these funds were wholly prospective. Insuperable difficulties opposed their collection. Nor was the principle just. The sickly and unskilful would have stood at a greater distance from liberation than the clever and robust. The successful thief could purchase his freedom, and leave behind his more honest shipmates. The criminal being confounded with the debtor, a penal sentence would have ended in a civil process. Earl Grey proposed to add to the free population by the expenditure of L10,000, granted by the parliament, but it was found that the families of convicts were to be the chief participants. Thus resumption cut off all hope of free emigration. Nor was it even desirable while the laboring classes were in poverty. The settlers had the example of New South Wales before them; where even the sudden stoppage of transportation had been followed by rapid recovery. They were willing to combat their difficulties alone. “Such,” said they, “will at no distant period be the condition of this country should the government prove just. And then, with its fertile valleys, clothed with abundance and filled with life, and its pure salubrious atmosphere giving length of days, it will need no other attractions than nature has conferred no other commerce than the commerce of freedom no patronage save the enterprise of its children. From the crown we ask nothing except to spare us from further wrong, and to accept our grateful loyalty in return for the uplifting of a burden too heavy to bear.”

The governor himself was adverse to the ticket system. The control exercised over the holders was limited to the most ineffectual and distant surveillance. They were free in reference to the colonists, and were subject to the same laws for the regulation of service. Restrictions were imposed on their locomotion, but without much practical restraint. Sir William Denison now recommended to the secretary of state to send all convicts to New South Wales, where wages were high and labor scarce, until the colonies being equal, the market of Van Diemen’s Land might again share in absorbing them. To this plan the colony would have been disposed to assent at this stage of the struggle. By most persons it was thought reasonable, on national grounds, that the theory of dispersion should be tried, wherever it might inflict no peculiar caste or moral stain. Mr. Sharland, a strenuous abolitionist, prepared a series of resolutions against the new form of convictism. The governor promised to support them in the nominee council, and they passed unanimously (October, 1848). The first totally objected to the ticket system, as in the highest degree injurious to the convicts and the colony, and without advantage to Great Britain. The second recommended the dispersion of convicts throughout the colonies, accompanied by well-selected emigrants. The commentary of the governor explained these resolutions as a compromise between persons of adverse views. A large number of non-official magistrates 117 out of 140 signed the condemnatory clause only. They declined to countenance the revival of transportation, or, by discussing theories of secondary punishment, to weaken the moral claim held in the pledge of Earl Grey.

The increasing numbers of ticket-holders confirmed these objections. They were landed, and forwarded in considerable bodies to seek employment in the interior. Their decent apparel and quiet demeanour made them less objects of aversion than pity. Unacquainted with colonial labor, they were often unable to procure employment. Amongst men of this class many, of course, were disorderly and reckless, and when they were not readily relieved, they were insolent and threatening. They could, indeed, throw up their tickets, and claim food of the government, but only by a process which exposed them to censure and punishment. “Unfortunate men,” said the London Agency Association, “unacquainted with useful labor, wander from farm to farm, asking for a night’s shelter or a morsel of bread. The relief of these men by the settlers is prompted alike by their humanity and their fears." These statements were disputed by the governor, but they were sustained by numerous certificates, and, in a form more qualified, by several police magistrates. In a lonely locality females could hardly refuse relief to applicants in parties, who pleaded the utmost want, and, when travelling over districts equal to an English county, depended on the charity of the settlers.

These appeals were laid before parliament; they rested their claims on the word and honor of the minister, and on the unaltered circumstances which he quoted to justify his original design of abolition. The pledge was confirmed by the long acquiescence of Earl Grey and the other ministers of the crown. Lord Mahon, a member of the late ministry, complained that Earl Grey had fettered not only himself but his successors. He confirmed the colonial interpretation of the pledge, “most imprudently given by Earl Grey, that transportation should not be resumed to Van Diemen’s Land;” and he expressed an opinion “that it was most impolitic and perilous thus to make pledges to the colonists that were not fulfilled."

During the same session Mr. Gladstone repeatedly referred to the purport of this abolition despatch, and urged the minister to extend as widely as possible the area of penal dispersion. He thought the policy of England less wise than in former times, when the numbers distributed in America were so small that they were lost in the mass of the population (March, ’49). Lord John Russell, he observed, had given a pledge that transportation to New South Wales should be stopped. The same promise was made to Van Diemen’s Land. Had these pledges been kept? Such vacillation was discreditable to the name of this great country (June, ’49).

Earl Grey was still pressed by the reiterated appeals of Van Diemen’s Land, and by imputations of having broken faith with its inhabitants. The complaints of eminent commoners were renewed in the lords. He was reminded that his opinions in 1846 were at variance with continued transportation. Earl Grey demanded proof, when Lord Lyttleton held up his despatch, and referred to an opinion but a few days before avowed by Lord John Russell, that the time was at hand when a substitute would be necessary for transportation. Lords Wodehouse and Ilchester followed, and predicted a fearful recoil, a severe and well merited retribution. Lord Stanley reflected on the secretary of state for abandoning the remedial plans of his predecessor. “Expectations,” he said, “had been held out to Van Diemen’s Land, that transportation would cease, but that now it appeared that it was not to cease. What security had the noble lord that the colony would not resist the reception of convicts?” Lord Monteagle asked if it was possible to send them to Van Diemen’s Land? To this Earl Grey replied that the colony was thriving, that the opposition to transportation had declined. Millions had been expended in preparing the country for convicts, and the free inhabitants could not expect that when they chose to call for cessation, the imperial policy was to be altered on their demand (April 12, 1850).

“I must notice,” said Earl Grey, “the remarks of the noble lord at the table (Lord Lyttleton) and the noble lord opposite, (Lord Stanley) as to the effect of the earlier measures of the present administration in producing the difficulty which is now complained of. It is asserted that the language used both in despatches and in discussions in parliament by members of her Majesty’s government was calculated to create an impression on the minds of the colonists, that transportation was to be entirely discontinued, and thus to raise expectation, which it is painful now to disappoint. My lords, if that impression and these expectations were created, it was rather by what other parties represented to be the views and intentions of the government, than by anything which was said by members of the administration. I defy any person to read through the despatches upon this subject as a whole (for perhaps detached passages taken without the contents might be quoted which would convey a different meaning), and not to perceive that the view entertained from first to last was, that convicts, after having undergone the most severe part of their punishment, were to be removed to the Australian colonies, and a very large portion of them to Van Diemen’s Land. Undoubtedly it was the original intention of her Majesty’s government that convicts should be removed as exiles; that is, under regulations by which on their arrival they would have been entirely free except as to the power of returning to this country.” When his lordship was again taunted with the violation of his promise, he replied that Van Diemen’s Land had no right to complain colonies which had been founded as free colonies might do so; “but Van Diemen’s Land had been originally intended as a penal settlement, and had no right to refuse to receive any number of prisoners the government choose to send, and that he (Earl Grey) was of opinion that the authority of the crown should be firmly asserted.”

Thus the hope of voluntary relief from Earl Grey was totally extinguished. He had before acknowledged that the claims of the colony were unsatisfied, and had given no distinct denial of the pledge; but his tone under these rebukes was authoritative and menacing. Passing over all he had ever said in favor of dispersion, he adopted the sentiments, almost the words of Lord Stanley, delivered four years before, when that nobleman defended the policy of transportation and denied the right of the colonists of Tasmania to complain.

The people of Van Diemen’s Land, on receiving this speech, met in unusual numbers, and renewed their protests and petitions. They extended the leagues, started a year before, by Mr. Young, a Launceston mechanic, to discountenance the employment of convicts. These compacts contained various conditions, but they all proceeded on the presumption that petitions must be followed by action. They were, however, difficult to observe. It was not easy to distinguish the different orders of convicts and periods of arrival. The working-classes, to whom the confederation was beneficial, taunted employers with inconsistency when they shrank from the unequal sacrifice. The governor himself described the opponents of transportation, who employed convicts, in terms of irony, and the press took up the reproach, and weekly reiterated the charge of “paltry trimming between principle and expediency.” By many hundreds the pledge was signed notwithstanding, and it was generally kept. Many tradesmen exhibited an example of self-denial and voluntary sacrifice to gain a public object worthy of praise.

When the Neptune, rejected by the Cape, arrived in the Derwent, except Mr. Mitchell, who was detained in bondage, the passengers were pardoned (1850). The painful exhibition of ministerial contempt stung more than it injured the people of Tasmania, and they declared that nothing but want of power prevented them from chasing the vessel from their waters. A solemn protest, addressed to the people of Great Britain, was signed by the chief merchants and landholders. From this time the colonists continued to protest specially against the violation of public faith whenever a convict vessel anchored on their shores. Scarcely any form of remonstrance remained to be tried. For three years the colonists had repeated their petitions. The collecting of signatures in a scattered population was attended with much difficulty and expense. To stimulate and sustain hope through so long a struggle was the great task of the leaders of this movement. The parents the women of Van Diemen’s Land the clergy, singly all sects together and in their separate churches, kept up by petitions a constant fire. Such a topic could hardly be expected to fix the attention of the people of England, but it derived fresh importance from its complication with the fate of other colonies and the honor of Great Britain.

The discussion of transportation for several years annoyed and distressed respectable expirees, who, unless intelligent and just, were disposed to murmur at arguments which seemed to glance at themselves. The caution and discrimination of the leaders of the movement could not always restrain the oratory of their friends, and many offensive metaphors or epithets dropped in the warmth of speaking, not in the circumstances to be justified. Stimulated by newspaper writers, certain educated emancipists of the metropolis proposed to form a “protection association” (October, 1850). In their manifesto they collected all the epithets calculated to wound the feelings of “their people,” for so they called them, and drew out columns of “grievances” in the mock sentimental style of pseudo martyrdom. “Such,” said they, “is our truly melancholy condition: but the time has arrived to rescue our people.” “We know the silent grandeur of our strength.” They proposed to put down the abolition press, to send emancipists to the Council, and to assert the majesty of their numbers against their emigrant oppressors. But, though encouraged by some old transportationists amongst the magistrates, and by the government press, the scheme was too monstrous for success. The respectable expirees stood aloof, and even detested an organisation founded on the reminiscences of crime. A few noisy meetings and inflammatory speeches were sufficient to open the eyes of most to the gulf of caste into which their own protectors intended to fling them. The deputations to the country districts were met in some instances coldly, and in others with laughter. Mr. Gregson went to the assembly at Richmond, and crushed their project by a calm exposition of its character. From this moment the Union languished, and soon disappeared, leaving a memorable warning against penal colonization and the creation of a caste embittered by ignorance and revenge.

It was, however, felt by the colonists that no expression of the public will would recall the minister to a sense of justice, or command the effectual protection of parliament. The measures adopted by the Cape were impracticable in Van Diemen’s Land: if, indeed, consistent with loyalty, they were not proper in a country where the support of the law was necessary to restrain the convict population. Such a course was predicted and recommended by the English press, but the ministers, better informed, felt no danger of active or passive resistance.

Whatever compassion might be felt for Van Diemen’s Land in the adjacent colonies, hitherto its treatment by the minister had produced no demonstration in its favor. It had been held up as a warning to stimulate resistance to any participation in its fate. The continental press pointed to its prostration with epithets of reproach, and it was described as the dust-hole of the empire. The sympathy of its neighbors was overpowered by the stronger feeling of self-preservation. It seemed like a mill-stone strung to the neck of the Australian world, and destined to drag it down to perdition. Under this impression they sought to impose restrictions on the migration of expirees and the holders of conditional pardons. The legislature of New South Wales passed a vagrant act, which required such persons to register their names at the nearest police-office, within a given time after their arrival. Earl Grey disallowed this ordinance, at the recommendation of Sir William Denison, as not only in itself oppressive, but calculated to retard dispersion, and counteract the royal prerogative. The great argument of the advocates for transportation in New South Wales was, however, founded on the impossibility of checking indirect transportation through Van Diemen’s Land. Men landed in Tasmania, crossed over to Port Phillip, and were often traced by their depredations.

The sense of impotence is not the least painful element of unjust suffering. This weakness was the topic of exulting scorn with the few enemies of the popular cause. The people were without allies or protectors, and completely subject to a despotic will.

SECTION V.

But the day of deliverance was at hand. “The Australias are one” became the watch-word of the abolitionists, and they adopted decisive means to propagate the cry, and secure the co-operation of the colonies of the continent. From this idea sprang the “Australasian League” an organization comprehending a numerical and moral force without parallel in the present colonial empire. At Launceston, on the 9th of August, 1850, the following resolution was adopted: “That the whole of the Australasian Colonies are deeply interested in preventing the continuance of Transportation to this Island. That the Launceston Association for Promoting the cessation of Transportation to Van Diemen’s Land be hereby requested to address a letter to the respective Colonial Secretaries, Speakers of Legislative bodies, Municipal authorities, and other influential parties in those Colonies, earnestly requesting the co-operation to ensure their attainment of the great object we have in view.”

The feeling expressed in this resolution was instantly reciprocated in all the colonies. Speakers at their meetings referred to the condition and hopeless prostration of Van Diemen’s Land as a general grievance. A letter, founded on this resolution, was drawn up by Messrs. West, Du Croz, and Douglas (dated August 26), under the instructions of the “Launceston Association,” the first formed in the colonies. It was signed by the chairman, Rev. Dr. Browne, senior-chaplain of Launceston. After tracing the course of the British government, it proceeded: “As a last resource we turn to our fellow-colonists who, united to us by the strictest ties, are liable to the same wrongs; and who will not be indifferent spectators of sufferings which they may ultimately share. If you look at the chart of Van Diemen’s Land you will perceive her geographical position establishes a relation to the adjacent colonies which no laws can disown and no time dissolve. A few hours convey vessels from our shores to the ports of Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia; and a few days’ sail to New Zealand, and thence to the islands that crowd the Pacific Ocean. Her majesty’s ministers have taught the communities established in this portion of the empire that their ultimate interests are ONE: that upon the public spirit, intelligence, and virtue of each, in no small measure, depend the happiness and prosperity of all. We remind you that, in twenty years from the present moment, should transportation continue, and the annual number remain stationary, 70,000 or 80,000 convicted persons will have passed through Van Diemen’s Land into the neighbouring colonies. They will consist of men not only originally depraved: all will have gone through the demoralizing probation of public gangs: they will all have dwelt, for several years, in exclusively convict society, where every prevailing sympathy must be tainted with the habits of crime. This island will not be a filter; but the accumulation of moral wretchedness will unavoidably contaminate every mind, and stamp on every character the impression of its peculiar constitution. The sacrifice of this colony will not, therefore, exempt the neighbouring settlements from any portion of the mischief incident to direct transportation. They will receive the prisoners later in life, but deteriorated in character. Evil associations and evil men become worse and worse: such is the dictate of reason, and such is the solemn warning written in the oracles of God. If, then, your colony had cause to protest against the infliction of this evil in a limited degree, how much stronger must be your opposition to a system which will bring into your streets, your houses, your hospitals and prisons, the crime, insanity, decrepitude, and pauperism ever consequent on transportation, aggravated by transmission through a country in moral ruin. Were we to appeal to a principle of selfishness in addressing our countrymen, we might remind you that the reputation of this entire hemisphere is compromised by the condition of Van Diemen’s Land. The nice geographical distinctions which colonists make are lost in the distance. As your vessels enter foreign ports, the line which divides your population from ours fails to distinguish them. We have heard with regret, and not without humiliation, that the British name, every where respectable until now, has ceased to insure to many, who have never forfeited its sanction, the common confidence of foreign nations. That a petty state, but of yesterday, has initiated laws intended to stigmatise all the inhabitants of the southern world, and attributing to the whole the character of convictism. A more serious consideration is the positive injury inflicted upon the islanders of the Southern Ocean by scattering among them desperate men who have been perfected in all the arts of wickedness, and who are placed within reach of an interesting and rising people, whom they too often shock by their vices and oppress by their crimes. We submit, sir, to your humanity as a British fellow subject, and to your discretion as a christian magistrate, the case of this country. In the mutation of human affairs, the arm of oppression, which has smitten us with desolation, may strike at your social well-being. Communities allied by blood, language, and commerce, cannot long suffer alone. We conjure you, therefore, by the unity of colonial interests as well as by the obligations which bind all men to intercede with the strong and unjust on behalf of the feeble and oppressed to exert your influence to the intent that transportation to Van Diemen’s Land may for ever cease.”

The colonial office at first did not deny, what indeed was unquestionable, that such hopes had been given, and not until twelve months after Lord Grey maintained that his discretion was not limited by his promise. Mr. Jackson again remonstrated with the minister on behalf of the colony. Earl Grey directed Mr. Hawes to assure him the government earnestly desired to meet the wishes of the inhabitants of Van Diemen’s Land for the discontinuance of transportation (March, 17, 1849). The opinion of British legislators of high pretensions having confirmed the colonial interpretation, Earl Grey made another effort to recover New South Wales. He once more instructed Sir C. Fitz Roy to reopen the discussion (No, 1849), and a message for this purpose was sent to the legislature (June, 1850). A new election meantime occurred, and the people, supposing the question irrevocably settled, had exacted no pledges from the members. Mr. Lamb, then a crown nominee, proposed (August, 1850), a series of resolutions confirming the previous decision, and declaring that tranquillity could only be restored by revoking “the order in council.” The debate on these resolutions was postponed until the 27th of September, when it was understood counter propositions would be submitted.

The proposal to revive transportation in New South Wales was under discussion when the speech of Earl Grey’s reached the colonies. The people were called together to consult on their own affairs and naturally turned to the policy of government as exhibited in Tasmania. The resolution of the 9th of August obtained an immediate response, and gave a new aspect to the agitation. The great Sydney meeting (September 16) “pledged themselves to co-operate with their brethren in Van Diemen’s Land;” and an association then formed for preventing the revival of transportation opened a channel of communication. The Sydney Herald, the chief organ of the abolition cause, remarked, “the best way of dealing with this and all other evasions is that suggested by the people of Van Diemen’s Land, the formation of a great Australian confederacy” (September 16). The people of Port Phillip “tendered their deep sympathy and hearty concurrence and co-operation,” and appointed a provisional committee to take such measures as might be deemed necessary to obtain complete redress. The unity of the colonies became thenceforth the favorite topic, and nothing remained but to give to this important sentiment a practical direction. Meanwhile (1st October), the council of New South Wales decided on the despatch of Earl Grey, so far as related to themselves. An amendment of Mr. M’Arthur, to receive selected exiles with three emigrants for each, although supported by the eloquence of Wentworth, was defeated, and Mr. Lamb’s motion carried without a division. The abolitionists had made efforts to secure unexampled demonstrations without, and to determine the question for ever. They held meetings daily, and called into action all the agents of political agitation. The ladies imitated the mothers and daughters of Van Diemen’s Land, and petitioned. The members on the popular side were encouraged by the countenance of the bishops and clergy of all persuasions. The judges gave the weight of their experience on the same side. Five hundred persons memorialised the council in favor of transportation. Thirty-six thousand protested against it. The Port Phillip members who went up to Sydney on this errand alone, to secure a majority of the side of abolition, were met by the citizens at the water side and escorted in triumph. The debates were more prolonged than any known before Australian eloquence exhausted the topic, and satisfied the public judgment for ever. Mr. Wentworth in supporting the amendment yet declared his aversion to transportation, and his belief that nothing but a powerful confederation of the colonies would prevail against it. The governor was neutral: the official members of the house withdrew: but the attorney-general rose from the deserted benches, and claiming to perform a duty as a citizen who had watched transportation in all its stages and results, gave an irresistible testimony on the side of social freedom.

A common interest in the liberation of Tasmania being thus avowed by the continental colonies, it became necessary to settle the principles of their confederation. The Rev. John West of Launceston, who had first mooted the measure, was deputed to consult with the colonists resident at Hobart Town. Meetings were accordingly held at the dwelling house of Mr. Hopkins of that city during several weeks, and the whole question of transportation in its colonial aspect was largely discussed. An impression seemed to prevail that the theory of dispersion, as originally propounded by Earl Grey, might have been beneficial to the empire and desirable for the convicts, and but slightly injurious to the colonies. It was clear, however, that the resolution of the free colonies was irrevocable, and that the continuance of transportation would pour an incessant and destructive stream of crime into Van Diemen’s Land. Nor was it possible to make common cause with the adjacent communities but by supporting the object of their local resistance. Without reference to theories no longer practicable, an agreement was drawn up by Mr. Pitcairn, and signed by the gentlemen present, in the following terms: “We the undersigned, deeply impressed by the evils which have arisen from the transportation of the criminals of Great Britain to the Australian colonies, declare that transportation to any of the colonies ought for ever to cease, and we do hereby pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to procure its abolition Robert Pitcairn, Thomas D. Chapman, Henry Hopkins, G. C. Clarke, Joseph Allport, John West, F. Haller, G. W. Walker, William Rout, Henry Smith, P. T. Smith, Robert Officer.”

Having thus secured concurrence in the object to be sought, the initiation of practical measures was remitted to the Association of Launceston. At an adjourned meeting of that body, on 10th October, the secretary, Mr. Crookes, was instructed to propose a conference of delegates from each of the colonies, to be held at Victoria. This proposal was instantly adopted by the abolitionists of Melbourne: the mayor was requested to forward invitations, and to fix the time of meeting for January, 1851. The people of New South Wales and South Australia found it inconvenient to comply with this arrangement, but expressed the most cordial interest in its issue. The Associations of Hobart Town and Launceston selected, as their delegates, the Rev. J. West and W. P. Weston, Esq., who, for some years, had been actively engaged in the struggle against transportation. A public breakfast was given by their constituents at the port of embarkation, at which Mr. Sharland presided. The delegates explained their views. They were going forth to change the policy of a mighty empire. “We,” said they, “assert that a community should deal with its own crime; at least, so deal with it that, in its disposal, it shall not injure those who have never offended, so that, at least, the honest labourer shall not be brought into unfavorable competition with the hardened criminal, so that, at all events, our sons shall not be driven from their homes to seek employment in distant lands, there to meet suspicion and contempt.” They disclaimed all intentions inconsistent with constitutional loyalty, and all weapons but those of justice and truth. “We are a loyal people, and have given abundant proof of our loyalty, but it is not an unalterable principle. There is an old proverb: ’The sweetest wine makes the sourest vinegar.’” On the departure of the delegates (Ja, 1851) they were attended by the Launceston Association and a large concourse of people. The vessels in the harbour were decorated with their colours, and the whole scene was imposing. Three cheers were given for the Australasian Conference, and three for the Queen. As the vessel moved from the wharf, the band struck up the air which well expressed the feelings of the moment “Rule Britannia: Britons never shall be slaves.” “In a few weeks,” said a spectator, “the Australasian League will be a great fact an epoch in the history of Australia. We have seen the beginning of the end.”

When the delegates landed at Victoria they were warmly welcomed. An address was read and presented to them by the mayor, Mr. Westgarth, the member for Melbourne, Mr. Stawell, and other gentlemen of the association. “We bid you,” said they, “God speed, in the high and holy mission on which you come. Rest assured that the colonists of Victoria will go with you heart and hand, and they will not cease their efforts until the emancipation of the Australian colonies from the oppression of British crime shall be fully accomplished.” “You,” said the delegates in reply, “can confer no greater honor on the province that bears the name of Victoria, than by initiating measures which may assure the Australian world that that illustrious name shall everywhere be the guarantee of justice and truth.” The delegates and the local association met in the town council chamber, and concerted the plans of future action. After several protracted sittings the terms of confederation were settled, and a “LEAGUE AND SOLEMN ENGAGEMENT” formed for the Australian world.

This covenant bound the subscribers to reject convict labour afterwards arriving; to employ their powers electoral, official, and legislative, for the extinction of transportation; and to afford their utmost assistance to all who might suffer in the lawful promotion of the cause. Another article, pledging non-intercourse with obstinate transportationists, was expunged on the motion of Messrs. West and Stawell, as scarcely within the range of moral force, and needless in the state of public feeling. To frame a confederation securing perfect independence of action in the separate colonies, and the effective co-operation of all, was a more difficult task. This, was, however, fully accomplished. The members, admitted by subscription alone, elected the provincial councils, who appointed their delegates. These formed the general conference. This body enacted the rules of united operation; they appointed an executive board to carry them out, and nominated gentlemen in London to direct operations in Great Britain. The local councils retaining control over the funds collected within their bounds were authorised to contribute for common purposes, and to appoint paid delegates to carry home their remonstrances to the English government and people. Such was the constitution of the League, which may hereafter suggest the union of the colonies under the sanction of the crown. The delegates adopted addresses to the British and the Australian public. To the colonies they depicted the vast moment of this agitation, and invoked their instant and earnest aid, closing with these solemn appeals: “Ponder deeply, fellow colonists of Australia, the prospect that lies before you. Consider well the moral and even the merely economical relations of the question. Reflect on the subject of the administration of justice, not only with reference to its enormous expense, but also as to the social effect of the ceaseless and weary labours of our criminal courts. Reflect on the vast and gloomy gaols that must meet our eyes in a noble and fruitful land, where prosperity should have banished almost the remembrance of crime; on the arrays of our police that ever remind us of the noxious elements of our communities; and think, too, of our daily press that might edify a virtuous public by accounts of incessant progress and well doing, but which, faithful to the cause of truth, must ever teem with the harrowing evidence of the depravity of our fellow-beings. And again turn to the scene that so frequently closes upon the career of the convict. Consider the helpless pauperism of improvidence; constitutions ruined by vice and profligacy; asylums and hospitals overflowing with degraded and wretched outcasts, descending to the grave without respect and without sympathy, quitting a world which they had only dishonoured and abused.”

“In conclusion, fellow colonists, with reference to this momentous question, let us not argue with the home government either on the law of the case, whether that be with them or with us, or on the relative power of the contending parties. The accidents of law or force, whichever way they might prevail, can never remedy the social disorders we complain of. Let us then represent to the British government, to the British parliament, and to the British public, that in the present state and prospects of the world, it is a great moral obligation on the part of our parent state, not to eject her criminals into other societies already charged with their own, but to retain and manage them within herself.”

In their address to the united kingdom they united remonstrance with warning: “We ask our fellow countrymen” said they, “to look at the map of the world; to measure the distance between England and her Australian dependencies; to mark their geographical relations with gigantic empires; and to estimate aright their future importance as elements of her wealth, greatness, and glory. If the colonists are compelled to own that their interests may be ruined by an official despatch that their name and fame may be dishonoured, to relieve the gaols of Great Britain if their youth cannot visit any country under an Australian flag without being made to feel that they were born in a degraded section of the globe, we are at a loss to imagine what advantages conferred by the sovereignty of Great Britain can compensate for the stigma of its brand.”

“We address the words of supplication, not of threatening. A few short years, and that which is now a grievance will grow into a quarrel. By instant concession, an act of justice will become a monument of imperial clemency. But these colonies are solemnly pledged, each to the other, by their mutual interests, their future destinies, their fellowship of weal and woe, and now by their League and Solemn Engagement, to achieve the freedom of their common country.”

Having arranged the plan of action, the association convened a meeting of the Victorians. On the memorable 1st of February, 1851, the league was solemnly inaugurated, being signed by the Tasmanian delegates, and by the mayor, William Nicholson, Esq., William Westgarth, Esq., M.L.C., and Montgomery Bell, Esq., alderman, as delegates for Melbourne. This done, a banner of deep blue, spangled with the Southern cross, adorned with the national colors, and bordered with white on which the date of the confederation was traced in letters of gold, was unfurled and greeted with the loud acclamations of the assembly. A council of nine was afterwards elected by ballot, composed of the most eminent citizens, the mayor being president.

It was determined to raise L20,000 as a league fund in the Australian colonies. Warmed by the advice and example of Mr. Bell, the opulent supporters of the cause resolved to take the chief burden on themselves. The delegates for Melbourne each subscribed one hundred guineas. Mr. Moor, the member for Port Phillip, added fifty to this sum as a special token of his sympathy with Tasmania. Thirty houses of business followed with one hundred guineas each. The mayor of Geelong, Dr. Thompson, set an example of similar liberality. A thousand persons met the delegates in that town; formed their own council, and embraced the league with enthusiasm. In less than a month nearly L7,000 was subscribed in Victoria alone.

But while the people were thus liberal in promoting the social freedom, their benevolence was drawn into another channel. A mournful visitation desolated the homes, and destroyed the lives of several of their fellow citizens. On the 6th of February, known as “black Thursday,” the thermometer was 115 in the shade, the sun, obscured by murky mists, looked like a globe of blood, the air was loaded with smoke and ashes, and as the night closed in, columns of fire were seen every where in the distance. The uninclosed country was sweept by the resistless element. Sometimes swifter than the fleetest horse, it overtook the traveller who could preserve his life only by facing round and dashing through its least impervious range. The parched leaves of the forest kindled at the first glance of the flame. Sheep and cattle fell dead farms and stock yards were destroyed in a few minutes. In many instances the blaze encircled the unfortunate before the danger was perceived. A strong hot wind bore along ashes, and carried them far over the ocean, where falling on the decks of vessels fifty miles from land, the passengers were terrified with vague apprehension, or thought that the end of the world was come. The effects of this devastation were in some places appalling. The Barrabool Hills, near Geelong, a district of romantic beauty celebrated for its vines, and occupied by small holders, were covered with blackened ruins. The whole family of Mr. M Leland, a settler near Melbourne, perished. The fire suddenly seized his dwelling and intercepted his escape. His wife and five children dropt one by one: he endeavoured to save his little boy, but he was suffocated in his arms; the unhappy parent was himself discovered a few hours after, by a shepherd, in a creek, where he had found refuge from his dread pursuer.

The mayor and corporation of Melbourne, then the only representative body in the province, presented the Tasmanian delegates with an address, and entertained them with splendid hospitality. A banner, bought by general subscription, was committed to their charge as a present to the colonists of Tasmania. The ladies of Victoria graced the ceremony of presentation. In giving this beautiful emblem of Australian re-union, “Gentlemen,” said the mayor, “I pray you to receive it in the name of the people of Port Phillip, and may it remain nailed to the mast until these colonies are emancipated from convictism.” “We accept it, with gratitude,” they replied, “May the flag which adorns it ever float above it in mild sovereignty: the noble nation from which we sprung will applaud and assist us. Such are our hopes; but whether they are doomed to disappointment or not, we shall discharge our duty as subjects, and then commit our cause to the righteous judgment of God. May He watch over our proceedings; may He permit us to add another to those bloodless victories which teach the oppressed to confide in the armour of truth while they warn all men that against weapons of such heavenly temper the shields of the mighty are lifted in vain.”

By this time the people of New South Wales became warmly interested in the league. No time was lost. To obtain the active assistance of that great colony was to insure success. Messrs. Moore and Westgarth, members of the legislature, and Dr. Thompson, mayor of Geelong, were deputed to act in the metropolis for Victoria. The delegates of Tasmania returned home. The banner intrusted to their care was publicly delivered at a meeting, of which, Mr. Dry was chairman. Councils were chosen for north and south Tasmania, and several thousand pounds were added to the league fund.

Messrs. West and Weston were commissioned to attend the conference at Sydney. Joined by the delegates for Victoria, they landed in March. A large concourse of citizens assembled at the Royal Hotel, where an address, breathing encouragement and hope, was read by Mr. Charles Cowper, in the name of the New South Wales association. The delegates, invited to a public banquet in honor of their mission, were met by the city members, the mayor, the principal merchants, and professional gentlemen. The immense wool store of Messrs. Mort, decorated for the occasion, exhibited a striking scene of luxury and magnificence. Speeches, such as Britons make when their hearts are loyal and their wrongs are felt, promised a hearty struggle, and predicted a certain victory. A public meeting of the colonists assembled to recognise the League, and dissolve the colonial association. Dr. Lang proposed another covenant drawn up by himself. It recited the chief facts stated in that of Victoria, but added: “And if it should be necessary in the struggle upon which we are now deliberately entering, for the protection and defence of our adopted country, as well as in the vindication of our rights as Britons, ... to have recourse to the last remedy of the oppressed, we appeal to God and the world, as to whether we shall not have indefeasible right and eternal justice on our side. So help us God.” A league, based on moral force, and disclaiming all weapons but those of persuasion and entreaty, was evidently at an end if armed resistance were contemplated as the final resource. The earnest objections of the delegates were supported by Mr. Lamb. The mercantile and professional classes decidedly disapproved of the substitution; but the strength of numbers might have carried the threatening clause had not Dr. Lang consented to abandon it. Never was the league in so much danger, it being determined by the delegates to relinquish all idea of confederation on any terms inconsistent with constitutional resistance. A proposal to join the league was carried amidst triumphant cheering. A council was chosen by ballot. Messrs. Charles Cowper, Robert Campbell, and Gilbert Wright were appointed delegates for New South Wales. The most impressive meeting held by the delegates, was convened in the congregational church of Sydney. A thousand persons, chiefly heads of families, and of both sexes, listened with absorbing interest to the appeals of clergymen, protestant and catholic, to principles familiar to the patriot and the christian. The venerable metropolitan, in accounting for his absence, recorded his conviction in terms suited to his office and experience, and in a strain of reproof and warning, which no government will venture to disregard. The first conference of the united colonies was held in the city of Sydney and closed its labours on the 1st day of May, 1851. A permanent executive board and a London delegation, were nominated; Mr. Charles Cowper being appointed the first president of the Australasian League, and Mr. Gilbert Wright, secretary.

The appointment of Mr. J. C. King as the delegate for Melbourne, and other gentlemen resident in London to act in the same capacity, was intended to agitate the colonial cause beneath the walls of parliament, and thus by multiplied agencies to weary the ministers into justice to conquer their obstinacy by a perpetual coming. It was the earnest desire of the founders of the league to employ all possible means consistent with loyal and constitutional principles, that the blame of ultimate consequences, if adverse, might remain with the servants of the crown. A letter of instructions addressed to Mr. J. A. Jackson and other delegates by the executive board of the league and signed by the president, stated clearly the duties which devolved upon them. “You will bear in mind that yours is the work of testimony, that we do not hold you responsible for the result. We are discharging by you a duty we owe to the parent country. We wish you to state our case; to deprecate the evils we suffer. We wish you to depict the vast resources and unrivalled beauty of these colonies, and to insist on the injustice and folly of degrading them to the purposes of a prison. We are anxious that you should tell our countrymen at home, that here is a land capable of boundless prosperity, that our whalers fish upon our coasts, that we number our sheep by millions, that our wheat is famed in every market in the world; that there are millions of acres over which the plough may be driven, and where the axe is not required as pioneer. You will tell them that we love our native country, and rejoice in our share of her heritage of glory, that we offer our filial duty and manly affiance, but, that we offer them on this condition, that we, and our children, and their country, shall be free. This granted, every hour will strengthen the relations already established between us; but should the object of our League, so near to our hearts, fail us, should the British public prove deaf or indifferent, or the minister prove inexorable, your mission will have been discharged; and we must await, as best we may, the development of those providential purposes which are often most obscure when they are nearest the dawn. ’England has no right to cast out amongst other nations, or upon naked shores, either her poverty or her crime. This is not the way in which a great and wealthy people, a MOTHER OF NATIONS, ought to colonize.’”

“Never has the question of transportation assumed a greater importance than at the present moment. The colonists are fretted by the vacillation of her Majesty’s government, but they are anxious to know that their honor and happiness are compatible with their present political relations. The plantation of new colonies in our vicinity, the now constant intercourse with the American continent, the discovery of gold fields, large in extent and abundant in production, on the Western Cordilleras of New South Wales, and the thence certain rapid influx of population, all make the future an object of solicitude. It may be your happiness to contribute to the achievement of this great moral victory, to the removal of those intolerable burdens imposed by a despotic minister, and permitted by the indifference of the British Nation, and thus to the establishment of a closer union between these colonies and the parent state.”

The chief reliance of the confederates, however, was on the approaching elections. The new constitutional act demanded a fresh appeal to the people. The constituencies of the Australian world were to decide its fate. The issue was no longer doubtful, except where the right of voting was conferred on few, and the influence of squatters paramount. Such places, were however, comparatively numerous, and a hard and earnest struggle was expected in the northern district of New South Wales. The conference of the League terminated its sittings on the 1st of May. On the 5th, the official corps of Victoria, the representatives and the delegates, left the wharf of Sydney, and amidst the cheers and forebodings of many quitted a political connection which had been often the source of angry strife. Victoria and New South Wales were now separate governments. The new colony, gigantic in its youth, threatened the supremacy of the middle district, while Moreton Bay was clamorous for a separate executive.

But on the 6th of May a discovery was announced, which changed the fortunes of the Australian empire. The predictions of science were fulfilled. It was stated in the Quarterly Review, (Sep, that New South Wales would probably be found wonderfully rich in precious metals. Scarcely had the conjecture reached the colony before it was verified, and Mr. Hargraves, a practical miner, discovered the gold of Bathurst. It was felt by the former apologists of transportation that the policy of England must condemn its continuance not less than the interests of the Australias. Mr. Wentworth was the first to announce the altered position of the question. He reminded the electors that he was originally opposed to the revival or continuance of transportation, could it by any means be got rid of in the whole Australian group, and that this was no longer impossible; “that a new and unexpected era had dawned, which in a few years would precipitate the colony into a nation.” He, therefore, pledged himself to join with them in any remonstrance intended to terminate transportation, and to prevent the formation of any penal settlement in the southern hemisphere. This manifesto was adopted by the former advocates of transportation in New South Wales, from the loftiest even to the least. Gold fields beyond the dreams of oriental vision were rapidly unfolded. The relations of labor and capital were entirely deranged, and the future became uncertain and perplexing. A few employers who imagined that their personal interests would be considered, grew more earnest for convict labor, not thinking how it could be retained, or caring for the crime and misery it might entail. But they were few. More generous spirits sympathised with the general aspect of a change which promised to people a region as fair and fertile, and as large as Europe. The strenuous resistance of transportation had cleared the character of the colonists, and proved that their feelings harmonised with the universal and unchangeable convictions of mankind. The first news of this great discovery was accompanied by the strongest evidence of Australian loyalty to the common law of nations. “The success of the confederation (said the first journal of Europe), forms a remarkable indication of a feeling in all the Australian colonies of a more elevated character than they have hitherto obtained credit for. It becomes more than ordinarily important to ascertain the exact nature of that moral and social atmosphere which so large a number of our countrymen are probably destined to breathe (October ’51).”

On their return to Tasmania the delegates were greeted with addresses and public demonstrations. The settlers, with a manly consistency, despite the threatened scarcity of labor, adhered to their flag and responded with cheers to those who predicted a temporary struggle and a bright futurity. But the agents of the convict department endeavored to rekindle the last embers of jealousy and hate. To the employers they predicted ruin; to the houseowners, desolation and emptiness; to the publicans the reign of puritanism; to the emancipists the ascendancy of the free, to be followed by unextinguishable persecution. All the sentiments and epithets known in Irish polemics and Irish séditions were re-arranged in the convict service, and scattered with profusion. The League was assailed with peculiar virulence, and all its distinguished adherents held up to scorn as religious and immoral men, as hateful for their covetousness and contemptible for their poverty. Sometimes they were locusts, swarming everywhere; at others they were a scattered and miserable remnant which the government and the convict party would speedily sweep away. The governor himself during a procession through the colony was cheered as the great champion of the pardoned, and placards represented that he had defeated a scheme of the settlers to deprive them of their votes. He entered the city in state and while he passed under a triumphal arch, Mr. West, the Hobart Town delegate, was publicly gibbetted. But the Trades’ Union, and an association of the Native Youth, assembled in the evening, and in the presence of many thousands, the well-dressed effigies of Earl Grey and the governor were thrown into an enormous fire.

Meanwhile the league was extended to South Australia. All the members of the legislature, except the officials, joined in a requisition to receive Messrs. West and Bell as delegates from Tasmania and Victoria (August, ’51). All denominations warmly advocated the cause. The largest assembly ever gathered there and including men who had never before united carried the resolution, moved by the Bishop of Adelaide, “that the total cessation of transportation to the Australian colonies is essential to their honor, happiness, and prosperity.” A meeting at Canterbury, New Zealand, called by Mr. Godley, adopted and subscribed the engagement (October, ’51). Thus the five colonies, answering to the stars of the Southern Cross, had raised that sign of hope and union.

The writs for Tasmania were at length issued. The day of general nomination was remarkably brilliant. The principal candidates were attended with numerous banners and long processions. The ladies wore the colors of their parties, and even the children to the number of several hundreds, marched in the train of Mr. Dry, the popular candidate for Launceston. On one of their banners a passage taken from a pamphlet of the day was inscribed “The last link of despotism is broken, when the children of the soil decree its freedom.” The native youth for the first time bore an active share in this last attempt to secure the liberties of their country, and, in a public assembly, to petition for its success, displayed both moderation and ability highly creditable considering the disadvantages under which they had labored. These efforts were successful. The country districts were in three cases disputed by the transportationists. They polled little more than a hundred votes, but in Hobart Town a more serious conflict was expected. Beside the lower class of expirees, many of the publicans and almost all in the service of the government were in favor of transportation, or compelled to support it. Mr. Young, a solicitor, after several candidates had offered and retired, determined on a contest with Messrs. Chapman and Dunn, the chairman and treasurer of the local league council: more than five hundred votes were polled in his interest, but the friends of freedom carried their candidates by a triumphant majority. The election at Hobart Town, accomplished in the face of every obstacle, demonstrated the strong and irrevocable desire of the people. The day of nomination was memorable in British history, the day when the signal of Nelson ran through the fleet “England expects every man will do his duty.” The speakers did not omit to apply an example so striking. A despatch of Sir William Denison (May, ’50), recommending the grant of lands and other advantages to reconcile the less incorruptible advocates of abolition and marked “confidential,” had just reached the colony, having been unaccountably inserted in the blue book. The moral choice of the people was still more strikingly manifest, when they disregarded such offers, whether considered as compensation or bribes, and rejected every advocate of transportation. Such appeals as the following were not heard in vain. “Now, let our signal be ’Tasmania expects every man to do his duty!’ The first earnest of your privileges must be the utter extinction of slavery in this your adopted land. By your most cherished associations by all that you hold most dear by the love you bear your domestic hearths by the claims and cries of your children by the light of that freedom, your common inheritance, which has now for the first time dawned upon you, which has gilt your mountains and gladdened your valleys, by the spirit of emancipation, and which at this very moment is beating in unison in strong pulsations through every artery of the island, until I can almost fancy that Nature herself heaves and sympathises with the universal emotion, I call upon you, adjure you, to cast off every unworthy feeling, and remember only ‘to do your duty’ towards your own your adopted land."

By a violent exertion the convict party were held together until the day of polling: then they disappeared with noise and riot, and were seen no more.

The reputable emancipists joined their emigrant countrymen. They held the balance in their hands. In the main they proved true to the principles which hold society together, and followed the dictates of parental affection. Many not actual members of the league supported its principles so far as they contemplated the social freedom of the Australian world. Thus all the preliminary steps were taken to secure the voice of the legislative councils, and throughout the southern hemisphere no representative of the people was found to stand up as the advocate of transportation. The proper moment for confederation had been found. A few months before it was unthought of a few months after it would have been impracticable. The speech of Earl Grey, was intended to extinguish finally all hope of freedom, but struck out a spark and kindled a flame which none can quench.

The representatives were true. The council of New South Wales, the earliest to assemble, struck the first blow for Australasian liberty. They voted, not for the deliverance of their own colony only, but for the rescue of Van Diemen’s Land. Mr. Lamb proposed resolutions charging Earl Grey with perfidy Mr. King sought the same object in a milder form, and in November the whole house concurred in condemning transportation. The Victorian legislature, on the motion of Mr. Westgarth, adopted a similar protest, though in stronger terms. Supported by the law officers of the crown, the resolutions passed with perfect unanimity (Dec.), and they were promptly forwarded by Governor Latrobe, who expressed the warmest interest in their success. Thousands of expirees and absconders, allured by the prospect of sudden riches, descended upon that province and filled the inhabitants with astonishment. Hundreds who arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in bondage, and many who quitted it without leave, became by a few days spoil, masters of from one hundred to a thousand pounds.

On the 16th December (1851), a series of resolutions were passed by the legislature of South Australia on the motion of Mr. Hall. Thus, three colonies, by a unanimous vote, pronounced the doom of transportation. Their governors were silent or approving. All, whether servants of the crown, or representatives of the people, united in one voice. Tasmania was the last to obtain the constitutional organization. On the 30th of December the governor met the men of the people, and found not one to sustain the policy of transportation. Mr. Dry, the first country born legislator, was unanimously elected to the speakership. The address presented to Sir Wm. Denison expressed deep regret that he had not considered it necessary to notice the all important subject of transportation, the violation of a pledge broken by the ministers of the crown, or had been able to announce that his own earnest representations had concurred with the unanimous desire of the Tasmanian constituencies. This complaint he received in silence. On the 14th of January, the subject was brought before the house by Mr. Sharland, who moved twelve resolutions. They recorded the violated pledge of Earl Grey, the protests of the colony against transportation; they professed the warmest loyalty to the throne, and attachment to Great Britain, and they pronounced the unchangeable opposition of the house to transportation. The discovery of gold was stated as calculated to induce her Majesty’s ministers to comply with the petitions of the people; “but if it should unhappily be otherwise” said the faithful representatives of Van Diemen’s Land, “it is our duty as colonists, and as British subjects, to exert to the utmost all the power with which this council is invested, to oppose, and if possible to defeat, every measure that may be suggested or attempted for the introduction of criminals into this country, at any time, or under any circumstances.”

For this resolution none but representatives of the people voted; against it, none but the nominees of the crown.

The triumph of this cause was the work of many and the labour of years. Thousands of articles often distinguished for ability, appeared in the colonial papers, and thus ripened the public mind to vigorous action. Many who have toiled survive to participate in the gladness of success: others have passed to the grave; among these the names of Archer and Oakden will recur to colonial remembrance, A future generation will best appreciate the value of that noble stand made against the allurements of real or imaginary gain, and the children of Tasmania will delight to inscribe the patriot’s name in the record of their country’s redemption.

But the impartiality of history demands a confession, less favorable to the colonists at large, and which must arrest a deliberate and absolute judgment against the ministers of the crown. The voice of employers too long favored transportation, and their temporary interests were preferred to their ultimate welfare. The press visited the friends of social freedom with sarcasm and contempt, and described them as purists and fanatics. Until the last ten years the colonial will has been neither steady nor distinct. Emigration and time have wrought a change in the prevailing feeling. Nor should it be forgotten that the first colonies of this hemisphere were planted for the punishment of crime and the reform of criminals that those who came to share their fortunes, necessarily inherited their dishonor, and that we require the abandonment of a policy once thought profoundly wise, and which was scarcely questioned for more than three score years.

The opposition of Sir William Denison to the colonial will on this subject, his injustice to the judges, and his sarcastic delineations of colonial character, have narrowed the circle of his friends. In future times an opinion more favorable to his reputation may be expected to prevail. It will then be remembered that he promoted the advancement of science, fostered liberal education, increased the facilities of commerce, abated the practical evils of the convict department, advocated the principles of legislative freedom, and, by a respectable private character, sustained the moral dignity of government. But even then it will not be forgotten, that in perpetuating the convict curse, he adopted any argument, however false, and tolerated any ally, however abject.