To Lord Stanley more blame must be attached. It was his duty to care for the reputation of a governor whom he did not instantly recall. But his despatch was in print long before it reached the hands of Franklin, and must have been fatal to his proper authority had not popular sympathy sustained his government. Before Sir John received an official notice of his recall his successor arrived. On this abrupt termination of his office he obtained private lodgings in haste. The Legislative Council, then sitting—the various churches and literary societies, expressed their admiration of his personal character, and, more sparingly, their approval of his administration. He was attended, on his departure, by a considerable party of northern colonists. Sir John, in reply to their addresses, spoke with some warmth of that portion of the press which had libelled his wife,—a lady devoted to the welfare of the colony; whose last act was to settle property on an institution for scientific uses; whose benevolence was unbounded, and who, at a large sacrifice of her private fortune, had ministered to the comforts of the poor. Had it been consistent with his duty, he said, he would have gladly exposed to the whole people his most secret measures. He declared that he would never fail to uphold the reputation and to promote the prosperity of the colony. The frank and humane temper of Sir John Franklin won the affections of the settlers. He thought favorably of their general character, appreciated their moral worth, and shared in their notions of convict discipline. The insults of which he complained were the acts of a few: a philosopher would have smiled where he deprecated; and have felt that the salary of office is not more certain than the enmities which surround it.

The alleged ascendancy of Lady Franklin in public affairs it would be useless to discuss. Her masculine intellect and adventurous spirit led some to ascribe to her more than the usual authority of her sex and station; but whenever apparent, her influence was exercised on the side of religion, science, and humanity.

The appointment of Franklin to this government was made at the instance of William IV., by whom he was greatly esteemed. It was the expectation of Sir John to find an easy retreat, like some of the military governments, where veterans enjoy the dignity of office without its toils. But he found himself doomed to encounter all the responsibilities of ordinary legislation and government, with difficulties peculiar to a penal colony. For this his former pursuits had not prepared him. His manner was often embarrassed and hesitating, and presented a contrast to the quiet vigor of his more able but not more amiable predecessor. The colony had attained that development when the public institutions require reconstruction, and the popular will must in some measure regulate their form and spirit. The administration of the governor was eminently disinterested. He had no private speculations or secret agents, and his measures were free from both the taint and the reproach of corruption. Such faults were sometimes imputed, but they were the staple slanders of writers without credit or name. His expenditure greatly exceeded his official income; and while the plainness of his establishment and entertainments was the topic of thoughtless censure, the charities of his family were scattered with a liberal hand. The piety of Franklin was ardent, and his conscience scrupulous. His remarks in council on the sports of some idle boys in the government domain on the Lord's Day exposed him to the satire of scorners. He thought that youths who violate the sanctity of the Sabbath take the first ordinary steps in a dissolute and dishonest life. An anecdote, on the authority of Captain Back, shows his harmless character in a striking light.[230] The writer observes—"As an illustration of the excellent individual to whom it refers, I may be pardoned for introducing it here. It was the custom of Sir John Franklin never to kill a fly, and though teased with them beyond expression, especially when taking observations, he would gently desist from his work, and patiently blow the half gorged intruders from his hands, saying, 'The world is wide enough for both.' Manfelly (an Indian chief) could not refrain from expressing his surprise that I should be so unlike the 'old chief' who would not destroy a single mosquito."

The name of Franklin is indissolubly connected with the great problem of modern geography—the connection of the polar seas with the north pacific ocean. In 1818 he was first employed in this service, but returned without success. In 1820 he conducted an overland expedition to the Coppermine River. This party suffered every kind of hardship, from the loss of boats and the mutiny of their attendants: several perished, having eaten their old shoes and scraps of leather: yet Franklin recorded in his journal the following grateful expressions—"We looked to the great author and giver of all good for the continuance of the support hitherto supplied in our greatest need." They completed a journey of 5,550 miles. The narrative of this expedition excited at the time much admiration, as a rare example of intrepidity, perseverance, and elevated piety.[231] In 1824 Franklin was entrusted with the charge of another expedition. They were attacked by the Indians, and the party was saved from destruction by the coolness and judgment of the leaders: they encountered storms, fogs, and cold, which prevented their reaching their destination. These efforts considerably enlarged the scientific knowledge of the icy region. On his return to England in 1843, it was resolved to confide to Sir John Franklin a new effort to discover the north-west passage. Accompanied by Captain Crozier, he sailed in May, 1845. The vessels—the Erebus and Terror—were furnished with provisions and artificial fuel for four years. They were last seen by whalers in Lancaster's Sound.

In 1847 the long absence of Franklin and the 136 persons under his command awakened considerable alarm. English expeditions, both by land and water, a reward of L20,000 offered by parliament, and the earnest co-operation of foreign powers, have done all that money, or daring, or affection could accomplish to solve the mystery of their fate. Though these efforts are not even now (1852) relinquished, the issue has ceased to be regarded with hope;—except by Lady Franklin, whose exertions to rouse and prolong the search have excited the sympathy and admiration of nations.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 228: Narrative of some passages in the History of Van Diemen's Land, during the last three years of Sir John Franklin's administration of its government.]

[Footnote 229: Franklin's Narrative, p. 21.]

[Footnote 230: Back's Expedition, p. 180. 1836.]

[Footnote 231: Quarterly Review.]



HISTORY OF TASMANIA

FROM 1843 TO 1847.



FROM 1843 TO 1847.



SECTION I.

Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot, Bart., succeeded Sir John Franklin, August 21st, 1843. His short and troubled administration, although crowded with incident, presents few events of permanent interest. Charged with the development of a gigantic scheme of penal discipline, founded on erroneous data, and imperfectly sustained by material resources, he was involved in the discredit of its failure. The opposition of the colony to his measures he too readily resented as disrespectful to himself, and thus a long and useful public life was closed in sadness.

Sir Eardley Wilmot received his appointment from Lord Stanley, whose political leadership he followed in his secession from the whigs, occasioned by the reduction of the Irish church. During successive parliaments he represented Warwickshire, and for twenty years was chairman of the quarter sessions of that county,—in England a post of some consequence. He inclined rather to the liberal than the tory section of the house, and supported most measures favorable to civil and religious freedom. On the question of negro slavery he was a coadjutor of the decided abolitionists, and on his motion apprenticeship, a milder form of slavery, was finally terminated. He contributed papers on prison discipline, and initiated a bill for the summary trial of juvenile offenders. Thus he appeared not unqualified to preside in a colony where penal institutions constituted the main business of government, and where many religious opinions divide the population.

The gazette which announced his appointment contained the nomination of Sir Charles Metcalf to the governorship of Canada, vacated by Sir George Arthur. An article in the London Times attacked Sir E. Wilmot with uncommon acrimony, attributed by himself to the influence of private spleen. He was described as a mere joking justice, accustomed in his judicial office to "poke fun" at prisoners, destitute alike of talents and dignity, and his character a contrast with that of the new Canadian governor. This bitter diatribe was published in the colonies, and was not forgotten in the strife of factions. Metcalf was indeed a governor with whom the widest comparison would scarcely find an equal. Every Capital he ruled is adorned with his statue, and when he descended to the dust his tomb was wet with the tears of nations. He consulted the ministers with the independence of a patriot, and governed the people as one of themselves.

Wilmot landed at a distance from Hobart Town, and delayed his entrance on office to afford time for a removal of Franklin's household. When he was sworn in the town illuminated, and the usual excitement of novelty wore the appearance of public welcome.

The open and affable address of the governor attracted the people. He rapidly traversed the island. The agricultural knowledge he possessed, his promptitude in forming and expressing opinions, contrasted with the habits and manners of his predecessor. Those who were experienced in official life foresaw the dangers of a temper so free and of movements so informal. The opponents of the late governor recommended the neglect of all the distinctions which had limited intercourse, and some persons, never before seen at government-house, were admitted to the closet, and boasted their intimacy and influence.

Scarcely had Wilmot entered office, when an exercise of mercy brought him into collision with one of the judges. Kavanagh, a notorious bushranger, was condemned to death. He had fired on a settler, whose house he attempted to pillage. In giving sentence the judge remarked that he had seldom tried a culprit stained with so great an aggregate of crime. Ten minutes before the time appointed for his execution the governor granted a reprieve. Judge Montagu was indignant, and those who had suffered by the depredations of the robber shared in his opinion. The press, in commenting on the commutation, predicted that the culprit would not long escape the scaffold. He was implicated in the murders of Norfolk Island, and suffered death (1846). Judge Montagu, shortly after the reprieve, tried four men for a similar crime, and instead of pronouncing sentence, directed death to be recorded. He stated that the sparing of Kavanagh could only be justified by the almost total abolition of capital punishment. At a meeting of the Midland Agricultural Association Wilmot noticed these reflections, and declared that he would never inflict death in consideration of offences not on the records of the court, and that in this case robbery only had been proved. He thus early complained of anonymous attacks, and admitted that in offering these explanations he was out-stepping the line of his situation. Topics of a far more agreeable nature were suggested by the special business of the day. He dwelt with great fluency on the advantages of agriculture, and dilated on the importance of independent tenants and an industrious peasantry. "You," he observed, "are to consider yourselves as the column of a lofty pillar; but, depend upon it, a tenantry form the pedestal,—a virtuous, moral, and industrious peasantry the foundation on which that pillar rests. I see around me some of your largest proprietors, who this day are lords of wastes and princes of deserts; but who, if the system of tenantry be carried out as fully as it deserves, will become patriarchs; and the future Russells, Cavendishes, and Percys of the colony may be proud to date their ancestry from any one of you."[232] This strain of compliment was returned by Mr. Kemp, the oldest of the settlers,—so many years before distinguished in the deposition of Governor Bligh. He congratulated the meeting on the appointment of his excellency, whose presence he compared to "the vivifying rays of the sun after a long cheerless winter, encouraging the ploughman to resume his labors with fresh spirit."

The prevalence of bushranging, though far less than at an earlier period, induced the midlanders to project a yeomanry corps. They were to provide weapons, meet for exercise, and always stand prepared to answer a summons. They proceeded to the choice of a treasurer and secretary—Messrs. Keach and Leake, Jun. They were, however, informed that the levying of armed men is the prerogative of the Queen. On reference to the governor, he declined to sanction their incorporation, while he praised their martial spirit. Bushrangers rarely move in numbers, and a military is not the kind of power best adapted to suppress them.

On meeting his council for the first time (October 21, 1843), Wilmot expressed his admiration of the colony, its soil, its climate, and immense resources. He promised to consider the pecuniary difficulties of the settlers, with a view to their alleviation. Referring to the appointment of a comptroller-general, the chief officer of the convict department, he declared his cordial concurrence with the new discipline as a reformatory system; and, noticing the recent arrival of a bishop, he avowed his preference for the episcopal church, and, in still stronger terms, his attachment to religious liberty and equality.

The salary of the governor was augmented to L4,000 per annum: the former uncertain but expensive allowances were withdrawn. Franklin had enjoyed L2,000 per annum, as salary, and the government houses of Hobart Town, New Norfolk, and Launceston; a farm at New Town, and a large garden in the domain. The salary of the new governor was given in full discharge of all demands. The beautiful gardens he determined to throw open to the public.

Having accepted the office of president, Wilmot convened the Tasmanian Society, formed by Franklin, and presented a series of alterations in its organisation. He proposed that it should consist of a president, four vice-presidents, and a council of twelve, to be nominated by the governor; and that at first it should be limited to fifty fellows. The project was distasteful to the original members of the Tasmanian Society, who objected to the summary increase of their body. Wilmot proceeded to incorporate those who concurred with his views as "The Horticultural and Botanical Society of Van Diemen's Land." They were then intrusted with the government garden, and the appropriation of a grant of L400 per annum, required for its cultivation. The discarded society complained of the haste of the proposed revolution. They thought past services demanded a consideration of their wishes. They had received in trust an endowment from Lady Franklin of some prospective value; they corresponded with men of the first scientific circles; and they had published a journal which widely extended the physical knowledge and European fame of this hemisphere. None who are experienced in the causes of political discontent will consider such trifles without serious effect on the tempers of parties and the peace of rulers.

Wilmot received the government in a condition most unfavorable to his tranquillity. The arrival of many thousand prisoners had for a time quickened trade, and some months elapsed before they became competitors for the bread of the free mechanics. The universally low price of labor, the demand for dwellings, and the closing of a local bank, which liberated small capitals, occasioned a competition for town allotments, and set all classes to building. But this stimulus was soon exhausted, and workmen of every grade began to suffer distress. They found hundreds of passholders working at a price to them, indeed, ample, but on which a family would starve. The regulations introduced by Lord John Russell discouraged employment of prisoners in the towns, where they could easily indulge every evil inclination, and where they abated the value and respectability of labor; but such was the pressure of numbers on the colonial government that its officers were glad to abandon all reformatory theories to get rid of the crowds which idled their time and burdened the British treasury. The free operative classes appealed to the governor for redress. Wilmot replied by appeals to their humanity: he said that many prisoners of the crown, influenced by bad example, ignorance, and want, had lost their liberty; that it would be unkind and unjust to obstruct their progress to competence and reformation. These excuses for a policy which tended to depress honest workmen only convinced them that it was time to retire from the country. A more powerful class might have shown that the proper office of mercy is to shorten the duration of a sentence, and not to inflict punishment on unoffending families of freemen.

A party of colonists, who chose Mr. Gilbert Robertson as their secretary, formed an association to promote the amelioration of financial embarrassment. They nominated a "central committee," to prepare information for the guidance of the government, and to watch over legislation. In explaining their plans to Wilmot they professed to feel confidence in his liberality, judgment, and zeal. To this he replied in glowing terms. He told them that during a short residence he had traversed the colony and acquired a knowledge of its value; that he had projected many schemes for the improvement of agriculture and the relief of the treasury. He gave strong assurances both of his expectation of better days and his efforts to hasten them; but then he complained that the association, by its structure and schemes, depressed his anticipations; that they proposed to supersede imperial instructions, and to supplant his constitutional advisers. The objections he offered, and the tone in which they were urged, induced a practical dissolution of the society—scarcely compatible with regular government.

For the last time in these colonies application was made by the settlers for a law to restrict the amount of usury. It had been a favorite object for many years. They asserted that the exactions of capitalists involved the colony in a hopeless struggle. England had, however, abrogated usury laws, and left the value of money to be determined by the ordinary relations of supply and demand. To this principle the governor resolved to adhere (1844).

What the law could not effect was produced by a less exceptionable process. The merchants and professional men addressed the banks, and urged an abatement of interest, then 10 per cent. for short-dated bills, and 12-1/2 for renewals. They appealed rather to liberality than to abstract right. This was followed by a reduction in the Van Diemen's Land Bank,—an example which the other establishments did not readily adopt. Eight per cent. soon, however, became the highest amount usually exacted in regular transactions.

The difficulties of the agriculturists from the low price of grain, induced them to look for artificial relief. With too much facility Wilmot gave hopes which he could not realise. The imposition of a heavy duty on New South Wales tobacco, amounting to prohibition, and that just as it was reaching considerable perfection, led to the imposition of a duty on our grain. It was the wish of the Tasmanian settlers to restore free trade between the colonies, and to impose discriminating duties on the produce of foreign countries; but the harsh and ridiculous system of colonial government, which discriminated between Australian and Canadian grain, compelled one British colony to treat another, its next neighbor, as an alien, and that while England demanded free admittance for English manufactures. The peremptory instructions of Stanley were conveyed to the local governors in terms of intimidation.[233] They were forbidden to allow any kindred colony the least advantage over foreigners, or to pass any bill for that purpose, and were told that any evasion of this restriction would occasion the high displeasure of the crown. The reason alleged for this interference was that colonies could not be expected to understand the treaties and trading system of the parent state; as if any treaty should have hindered a commerce actually not more distinct than the trade between London and Liverpool. Wilmot warmly espoused the claim of the Australian colonies to share in the privilege of Canada, in favor of which the duties had been relaxed on colonial grain. Mr. Hutt brought their petitions before the attention of parliament; but he could not plead a political necessity, and the ministers were able to resist without the risk of a rebellion. They asserted that the distance made the concession of no practical value, while it would tend to augment the alarm of the English farmers! Thus, while they humored the empty fears of their own constituents, they afforded another example of the futility of colonial petitions which, however just, it is convenient to disregard.

To assist agriculture, the council passed an act interdicting the use of sugar, under certain conditions, by public brewers. The trade strongly objected to the restriction, as impolitic, vexatious, and impracticable. Their objections were admitted by the secretary of state, who quietly observed that he had been advised that sugar could not be considered deleterious. This is the last attempt at protective legislation.

To benefit the rural interest the governor proposed a grand scheme of irrigation. An eminent engineer, Major Cotton, was employed to report on the subject, and suggested the detention of the waters of the vast lakes which overflow from the heights of the western mountains. A rate to be imposed on the various estates was to discharge the cost. Thus in those seasons of drought which sometimes occur the lowlands would be made increasingly fertile. The immediate object—the employment of probation labor at the colonial cost—detracted something from the charms of the project. Nor did it seem just that the settlers should risk the ultimate cost of an undertaking they could not limit. Sir E. Wilmot earnestly recommended the scheme to the home government, but Lord Stanley hesitated until the evils of the probation system enforced a change, and lessened the labor at the disposal of the crown. Had the men been employed on a work so popular they would have been withdrawn from the colonial eye, and the interest of their new labors might have extinguished the prevailing discontent. But while the governor waited for instructions the men were idle, or employed in useless attempts at cultivation on barren land, of which the produce rarely defrayed the cost of the implements destroyed.

The charge for police and gaols had always been borne by the legislative council with impatience. The estimates were accompanied by an annual protest against entailing on the colony any pecuniary consequence of British crime. But when the convict labor was withdrawn from the roads, and new taxes demanded, the time arrived for the most decided resistance, and the event proved that the councillors who refused their consent acted with prudence. The minister himself was compelled to own at last, that the exaction of twenty shillings per head for police, was unexampled in civilised governments.

In 1836 Mr. Spring Rice (now Lord Monteagle) took advantage of a considerable local land fund to throw on the council the police establishment of the colony, occasioned by transportation. The sum then required (L14,000) was comparatively unimportant, and it was urged that the labor of convicts employed on public works at the cost of Great Britain, except L4,000 for superintendence, was a sufficient compensation. But the charge for constabulary and prisons gradually increased to L36,000. The land fund, after deducting L97,000, expended for emigration, for the support of aborigines, and the working of the land office, yielded in ten years a surplus of L207,000, carried to the general revenue; but during this time the charge for police and gaols exceeded L311,000. The increase of judicial expenses, and especially of witnesses, was proportionately great; and this last item in one year (1846), although most lighter crimes were disposed of in a summary way, rose to L6,000. The execution of public works by the crown had been the sole vindication of these charges. From this arrangement Lord Stanley departed, and in peremptory terms prohibited a spade to be moved but on payment from the colonial treasury. Thus at a season of commercial stagnation the benefit of convict labor was withdrawn, while the charges for police and gaols rose to one-third of the entire revenue of the colony, and in two years and a-half a debt accumulated to L100,000.

Notwithstanding the obvious injustice of this burden, the treatment of the New South Wales legislature gave slight hope of redress. Lord Stanley directed Sir George Gipps to obviate the threatened resistance of that council by hastening pardons to the prisoners, by withdrawing them from the service of the settlers, and by sending those not otherwise disposable to Van Diemen's Land. He was forbidden to relieve extreme financial difficulties by drafts on England, or draw from the military chest, although at the period an immense body of convicts remained long after transportation had ceased. This disregard of a more powerful colony led the people of Van Diemen's Land to infer that from a minister so unscrupulous no justice could be expected while evasion was possible.

Wilmot was deeply embarrassed, but he determined to adhere to the instructions of the secretary of state, whose distance prevented his perceiving the hopelessness of his project until that discovery was unavailing. The positive nature of these injunctions left no room for discretion. The governor was commanded not to adopt any detailed regulations at variance with the scheme prescribed by the crown, or to depart from its provisions without express authority.[234]

Sir Eardley Wilmot resolved that the utmost extent of taxation should be tried rather than infringe the orders of Stanley. A bill to raise the duties on sugar, teas, and foreign goods from 5 to 15 per cent. encountered an earnest but unavailing opposition. This bill was still more obnoxious from a clause, afterwards abandoned, to levy the duty on the current value of goods at the market of consumption, instead of export—a mode which taxed all the expenses of shipment. Mr. Gregson proposed the rejection of an impost required only by the extraordinary pressure of convictism. Several of the non-official members voted with the governor for the last time.

A committee of the council had been appointed to ascertain how the expenditure could be reduced and the revenue augmented. They enumerated various forms in which further taxation might be practicable. These were proposed by the governor. Auctioneers, pawnbrokers, publicans, butchers, eating-house keepers, stage-coach and steam-boat proprietors, cabmen, and watermen, were to be subject to new or increased license fees.

This project aroused the people to an unusual degree. On the day of public meeting[235] a procession of cabs and waggons, decorated with flags bearing the inscription, "No taxation without representation," presented a novelty in colonial agitation. Mr. Kemp, the veteran politician, presided. The opposition prevailed, and the governor resolved to withdraw the obnoxious measure. It would be difficult to discern a line beyond which taxation might not pass, if every trade and profession can be subject to arbitrary imposts levied by a legislature at the mere dictation of the crown.

Referring to this meeting as a triumph which history would report to the latest posterity, the Courier added—"Rulers will henceforth recoil from the virtuous indignation of the people, as the reptile recoiled from the touch of Ithuriel's spear." It was supposed by Wilmot that this not very lucid prediction conveyed a gross and personal insult, and that it attributed to him the artifices and loathsome habits of the fiend. The private secretary was instructed to withdraw the subscription of the governor, and to explain the cause of his displeasure. Such petulance took the colony by surprise. A less experienced politician might have been expected to disregard a heavier censure; and this conflict with a local editor was noticed by the London press as a curious instance of official sensibility.

The sheriff refused to call a meeting to consider the condition of the colony, because one of the objects was to notice the appropriation of the public revenue. This he had been advised was an interference with the royal prerogative! The friendly tone of his refusal restrained the wrath it was calculated to excite. It is quite impossible to suppose any branch of politics more clearly within the sphere of popular remonstrance than the expenditure of the public money (August, 1845).

Mr. Bicheno, the colonial secretary, who, like the governor, might have been popular in quiet times, was little qualified for a stormy debate. He announced the most arbitrary notions in the blandest tones, and asserted that the doctrine of concurrent representation and taxation was a wild revolutionary idea, exploded by American independence. The revenues he called the Queen's, and thought it monstrous that any should dispute her right to her own. Though he compared the parent country to the hen and the colonies to chickens, he could see nothing to disturb the analogy in a demand for fresh contributions. He asserted that all constitutional history showed that it was the prerogative of the crown to tax the people, and instanced the Cape—a conquered province—as an example. He affirmed that customs were not taxes, as the public were not compelled to use the articles on which they were levied. The prosperity of communities he asserted rose with the increase of taxation; that the placards posted over the town were a complete delusion. Taxation and representation—a cry first introduced by Lord Chatham, was, he said, never adopted by the liberal whigs (August, 1845). Such un-English notions were no assistance to the cause of the executive, and were distasteful to all who pretended to value constitutional government.

The ad valorem duties, raised to 15 per cent., for some time produced less than they realised at five. The licensing scheme being rejected, nothing remained but to reduce the expenditure or increase the debt. To relieve the revenue and employ the convicts the executive proposed a road act, and another for lighting and paving Hobart Town. The great objection to these measures was their design to evade the question at issue between the home government and the colony;—with many more odious still as recognising a right in a crown appointed legislature either directly or indirectly to tax the people. Mr. Gregson stated early in the session that he would not levy a shilling additional until the burdens of police were equitably adjusted. Supported by Captain Swanston, formerly a staunch adherent of Sir G. Arthur, he successfully moved the rejection of these bills. Their discussion drew forth many expressions of personal feeling. The governor declared he would not stay in office one hour did he not believe that Lord Stanley meant fairly by the colony, or could he not conscientiously act upon his lordship's instructions; and he begged that all the opprobrium cast on Lord Stanley might be considered equally applied to himself. He remarked that the opposition had exhibited a spirit "more radical and even Jacobinical" than he ever had witnessed in parliamentary factions. These reproaches were repelled by Mr. Gregson, who contended that in resisting unjust exactions for convict purposes he was promoting the real interests of the colonial government. The governor retorted that with such support as the honorable member afforded he would readily dispense.

When the estimates for the year were presented (August 20th) the country party insisted on enquiry, and Mr. Dry proposed the appointment of a committee to ascertain the proportionate burdens transportation imposed. This motion was rejected by the governor's casting vote. Another, made for adjournment, to give the members time to investigate the items, met a similar fate. It was, however, discovered when the estimates were read that they differed from the copy in the hands of the members. The chief justice supported a second motion for adjournment, to enable the colonial secretary to correct these discrepancies. On the re-assembling of the council (25th) the governor stated that considering the determination avowed by the members to refuse all items for the expenses of convictism, and the general state of popular feeling, he had resolved to pause, and to await the arrival of expected despatches on the subject of dispute from Lord Stanley, in reply to his own.

Sir E. Wilmot was sensible of the financial burden inflicted by the convict establishments. A committee of government officers sat shortly after his arrival, and pointed out the many and large items to be traced to the prevention and punishment of crime. This report he forwarded to Lord Stanley. He complained that charges never before thought of were levied by the commissariat, as well as the full value of convict labor, and insisted that the expences incurred by the colonists for police ought in fairness to be defrayed by the crown, or that the labor at its disposal should as formerly be allowed in compensation.[236]

So late as August, 1844, the secretary of state refused to entertain the claim for relief. He stated that the colony would be obliged to expend a sum nearly equal, although all the convicts were withdrawn; for their sakes, he said, the island was colonised; they constituted the working population; and he added that in the military and naval protection, the support of the unemployed convict, and the capital and cheap labor poured into the colony, a fair proportion of expenditure was borne by the crown.

Pressed by extraordinary difficulties, Wilmot again[237] urged the injustice of these conclusions. He complained that not only India, China, and the Cape of Good Hope, but New South Wales, were pouring in felons of the worst description, who, as pass-holders, occasioned a vast outlay for the suppression of crime. He told his lordship that for several years the land fund had totally failed, while the expenses of police and gaols, of judges and witnesses, had risen to L50,000. At this time the number of arrivals was five thousand annually, sent from every colony and dependency of the empire, as well as from the United Kingdom. There were between three and four thousand pass-holders unemployed, 7,000 in private service, 6,000 about to emerge from the gangs, 8,000 with tickets-of-leave or conditional pardons, and in all more than 30,000 unqualified to quit the island without the consent of the crown.[238]

It is impossible to read these representations without feeling indignant at the nobleman who suffered the representative of the Queen to struggle with difficulties so manifold and great,—who left him to the alternative of breaking through positive prohibitions or of incurring popular distrust and aversion. To this delay the governor owed much of the opposition he suffered, and the imperial government inconveniences of lasting consequence. Nothing was conceded to justice—nothing to entreaty; and the secretary of state yielded at last as despotism must ever yield,—without merit and without thanks.

The whole change in the details of the convict department was marked by a spirit eminently opposed to the colonial welfare. With singular acuteness and perspicuity Lord Stanley described the former systems as subject to local influence and subservient to local ends. Every governor, he alleged, was under a strong bias in favor of expense, as the patron of a multitude of officials. He stated that the executive council were equally benefited by the wasteful expenditure, either in their own persons or those of their official brethren, and that every colonist had an interest in the multiplication of bills on the British treasury. To prevent these abuses, the convict estimates were thenceforth to be prepared by the colonial secretary, the comptroller-general, and the commissariat officer, subject to the approval of the secretary of state.

The management of the prisoners being confided to the judgment of the governor, Lord Stanley deemed the chief cause of its many changes, and its subservience to colonial prosperity. The deference of the ministers to this discretion he attributed to the unwillingness of the home office to interfere with a functionary in correspondence with the colonial office, and the reluctance of the secretary for the colonies to guide a penal system designed for interests exclusively imperial. Thus, he stated, the governor was practically independent, and had strong inducements to render the labor of convicts subservient to colonial wealth, and to disregard the great design—the prevention of crime in Great Britain. He declared that all schemes of convict management were of colonial origin, and all contemplated local interests as their main object. To prevent these devices he proposed to retain in the colonial-office the exclusive management of the details of transportation.[239]

Among the items of convict expense was a charge of L164,000 for rations. This Lord Stanley considered an extravagant outlay. He deemed it highly improper that in a country where all the means of subsistence existed in such abundance with an unlimited supply of manual labor, this charge should remain. He however feared that while the convicts were permitted to labor on works of colonial utility the local authorities would always find means to increase the charges for their subsistence (Feb. 28, '43). The treasury concurred in this view, and requested that explicit instructions might be given to Wilmot and the comptroller-general to prevent the employment of labor for the colonial benefit, and to devote their utmost efforts to raise the food on the waste lands of the colony.

The convict department attempted agriculture, and they selected for the experiment cold, damp, and barren soils. Gardens of a few acres occupied a thousand men: the cleared land was utterly worthless. Garden seeds were brought into the colonial market, and potatos sold at twenty shillings which cost the government L10 per ton. Several hundred men idled their time in cultivating land which did not equal in the aggregate a single farm.[240] The estimated value of all the articles produced on two stations, Deloraine and Westbury, in 1846, by four hundred men, was less than L2 per man; while the salaries of their officers were nearly double that sum.[241]

Mr. Montagu, the late colonial secretary, in estimating the cost of the convict department, presented a calculation L100,000 annually less than the estimate of the officers on the spot. This difference Lord Stanley set up as proof of the culpable negligence and profligacy of colonial expense. He considered the body of persons employed in the control of prisoners excessive. A reduction was therefore enforced, and in the end less surveillance was employed than free labor usually requires.

To each party of three hundred seven overseers were attached, without constables or other restraint. The sub-division of these parties in labor left them often to the practical oversight of a single person, and he an expiree. Thus they were able to make excursions for the purposes of robbery and pleasure: their clothing tended rather to disguise than distinguish them. As the terms of their service expired they were discharged in the prison dress, and no one could tell whether they were or not illegally at large. Escaped prisoners have been known to walk through bodies of men on the road without challenge. In several instances robberies were committed on travellers within the precincts of the stations. The enclosures were often merely the common garden fence. The judges avowed that in passing sentence for crimes they could not punish them with severity, considering the strong temptations of the men. Remembering the number virtually and legally at large, the degree of safety, or rather the instances of exemption from pillage, must be considered almost miraculous. A great portion of minor crimes were not prosecuted, and a still larger number were undetected; but eight hundred recorded crimes—a scourge to ten thousand families, and full of terror and danger to all—would not seem extravagant when divided among thirty thousand prisoners.

The despatches of Wilmot to Lord Stanley described with accurate minuteness the social effects of the probation system. Those who remember his apparent apathy when those evils were the topics of colonial complaint will deplore the strange fidelity to his political chief which induced him to conceal his own sentiments from the colonists. He stated that the territory was inundated with unemployed prisoners; that no labor being in demand, they must either starve or steal; that a yearly increasing pauper population, without adding one atom to colonial wealth, would swell the catalogue of crime and increase the public expense in every form; that the number out of employment was fearfully great; and that land—cleared, fenced, in complete cultivation, with houses and buildings—might be bought at the upset price of waste land. To remedy these evils he proposed the extension of conditional pardons to the Australian colonies, the remission of the price of crown lands to emigrants, and the letting of allotments at a nominal rental for seven years to conditionally pardoned men, with a contingent right of purchase.[242]

To all these remonstrances, so far as they affected the colonist, Lord Stanley had a ready reply. The colony was originally penal, and could claim neither compensation nor relief. He considered that in emigrating the colonists surrendered at discretion; that they were not entitled to object to the trebling of their police burdens and to the importation of all instead of a small part of the convicts of the empire, as was the case up to 1840. His rejoinder was felt with that bitterness which none can realise who have not known the tyranny of irresistible despotism. Happily for mankind there is no power above the steady and determined operations of truth and right. The cruel desertion of the people in the hour of their distress—the scornful defiance of their complaints, has involved the cabinet of England in difficulties for which nothing but great sacrifices will fully obviate. No people in this hemisphere will entirely trust a British minister until the history of Van Diemen's Land is forgotten.

The anticipated relief not having arrived, the governor again assembled the council on the 21st of October. He now proposed several expedients to meet the exigencies of the moment. He had, unauthorised by the council, borrowed money of a bank. He proposed to stop the forage allowance of the clergy, and to retain 12-1/2 per cent. of the salaries of the officials. Both these measures were withstood—the last effectively. The chief justice denied the power of the council to interfere with his income. When a new set of estimates was offered they were found to be unintelligible, and an adjournment, to enable the colonial secretary to afford the necessary information, was proposed by Mr. Dry. This reasonable request was lost by the governor's casting vote, and several motions with a similar object were defeated in the same manner. Mr. O'Connor, the non-official member who supported the executive, was absent, and thus the votes of the official and country party were equal, and the balance was in the governor's hands.[243] At the next sitting of the council Wilmot proposed to pass the estimates. Ineffectual efforts to postpone their consideration exhausted all means of evasion, and Mr. Dry moved that the Appropriation Act should be read that day six months. He expatiated on the injustice of the system which condemned the colony to the cost of an imperial scheme, and insisted on the solemn obligation of the council to resist an accumulation of debt which must involve the colony in ruin. Mr. Gregson followed, and referred to the unavailing representations of Sir G. Arthur, Sir John Franklin, and Sir E. Wilmot himself, in reference to police expenses, and dwelling on the evils of the convict system. An adjournment of the debate being moved the governor opposed it with his deliberative and casting vote, and added that he resisted the motion because it was only intended to embarrass. The Appropriation Act would then have gone to the third reading, but the non-official members at once quitted the chamber, and reduced the number below the legal quorum. On the day following Mr. Gregson appeared at the table and apologised for the absence of his honorable brethren, who were preparing a protest to present on the morrow. Wilmot complained of discourtesy, and denounced the opposition as disloyal and unconstitutional. They asserted that quitting the council chamber was not unusual, and was not a concerted movement, and resented in decided language the charge of disloyalty,—amounting in sworn councillors to perjury, if rigorously construed. The governor afterwards explained that he had reference only to the particular instance, and not to their general intentions.

It had been publicly rumored that rather than allow the Appropriation Act to pass, several members had resolved to resign. Captain Swanston, less prominent in opposition, waited on the governor, and earnestly advised him to forward another set of estimates, prepared by Captain Swanston, for the approval of the secretary of state. He warned him that should he persevere a rupture would inevitably follow. In this interview the governor expressed his determination to proceed. He forgot, it would seem, some of those forms of civility which no man can safely neglect, and Captain Swanston left him with a sense of personal affront,—an immedicable wound.[244]

In this temper the council met on the 3rd of October. Mr. Gregson called the attention of the members to a question submitted to Mr. Francis Smith, a barrister: Whether, as chairman of a committee, the governor had a deliberate and casting vote, and whether the quorum required by law at a meeting of council was requisite in committee; and thus whether the estimates were legally passed through the committee, the numbers present being less than one third, and the governor giving his double vote. Mr. Smith gave his opinion that the estimates were in law rejected instead of carried; but the chief justice considered the sitting of committee merely a convenient method to sift beforehand items afterwards to receive a legal sanction in the council. The attorney-general without notice was unprepared to give an opinion, and a motion of Mr. Gregson for delay was lost. The colonial secretary then moved the third reading of the obnoxious bill, when Mr. Dry rose to read a minute, signed by the members in opposition, objecting to the proceedings. This being rejected as irregular, Mr. Gregson proposed that the third reading should be delayed that the members dissenting might bring forward other estimates. In urging this motion he rebutted the "disloyal" imputation, and referred the governor to the unity existing in the country party in proof that inevitable necessity alone had prompted the co-operation of persons hitherto adverse. This motion being lost—before the Appropriation Act could be carried—the opposition quitted the council. Those remaining did not constitute a quorum, and the legislative session was abruptly terminated. The Gazette of November the 4th announced that Charles Swanston, Michael Fenton, John Kerr, William Kermode, Thomas G. Gregson, and Richard Dry, Esquires, had resigned their seats.

The obligation of the official members of the council to vote with the governor on all government questions had been long before decided. The non-official were only bound by their oaths to assist in all measures necessary for the good of the colony, but the nature of their powers and the proper mode of their exercise were subjects of dispute. Wilmot maintained that they were assisting in "a council of advice" on subjects submitted to their judgment, and were not qualified to question the general policy of the executive. All beyond a simple aye or no he deemed usurpation. Thus when they demanded papers, called for committees, and obstructed obnoxious measures by the artifices of parliamentary debate, they were charged with forgetting the duties of their office. These gentlemen, however, maintained that it was their duty to hold the executive in check on behalf of the people, and that whatever was not abstracted from their supervision by specific laws was proper for their consideration. The governor claimed a deliberate and casting vote; and thus one non-official member, by concurring with the executive, or even by abstaining from voting, neutralised the voice of the rest. The official members had no discretion allowed. Lord Stanley had ruled that, choosing to assume relations disqualifying them to vote with the governor, they were perfectly free to do so; but having done so, they could not retain their employment. He alleged that there would be an end of official subordination, and that the public service would be brought into serious discredit by allowing a different course. He admitted that exceptions might occur, but their force was left to the judgment of the governor.[245] This decision reduced the official debates to a mere pantomime, and a seven-fold vote would have better expressed the real character of the legislature than the disguise of separate suffrages. The chief justice was alone independent.

Having resigned their office, the six sent a letter of explanation to Lord Stanley. In summing up their complaints they asserted that they were called on to vote an expenditure the colony could not bear,—to anticipate a revenue higher than the customs department calculated on receiving; that they were denied information, although they were bound to deliberate; that they were expected to augment an alarming debt, and, when crime was increasing, to diminish police protection; that they were told by the governor he would carry the estimates by his casting-vote, before they refused to pass or had examined them; that the governor claimed power to borrow and spend without legislative consent; and finally, that discussion and enquiry were denounced as factious, unconstitutional, and disloyal: under these circumstances they resigned their seats, as the only open course, and submitted their conduct to the judgment of the Queen.

The opposition to the measures of Wilmot could not be in every instance justified if separately considered. But the colony discovered in the governor an inflexible determination to carry out the system of probation under the instructions of Lord Stanley. It was not possible to resist the secretary of state, the chief aggressor. The imperious tenor of his despatches taught the people that mere remonstrance would be unavailing. They could only arrest his attention by involving his agents in embarrassment. Repeated motions for the attainment of the same object are certainly incompatible with legislative order. A small party might retard the public business, and gain no good end by delay; but the exact line between fair and factious opposition is not easily discovered and can be often only ascertained by the result. In this instance the object was clearly expressed in a rejected resolution:—"This council do decline voting the sums stated in the estimates laid on the table for the payment of the judicial, police, and gaol establishments during the ensuing year, as far as the expenses of the convict department with respect to those items are incurred. At the same time they desire to place on record an expression of regret that they should, by a sense of duty, be compelled to adopt any measure likely even temporarily to embarrass his excellency's government."[246]

The cause of "the patriotic six," as they were called, was eagerly espoused by the colony. To supply the vacancies occasioned by their retirement was the labor of weeks. The governor defended himself from the charge of despotism, and declared that he would never interrupt the freedom of debate or attempt to force the compliance of the council. The opposition press held up to scorn those disposed to accept a nomination, and gentlemen who did so were assailed with scandalous abuse,—so easily is the noblest cause degraded by its friends. A more suitable expression of popular feeling was given on the return of Mr. Dry to his native town. He was escorted by a large concourse of people and with all the usual tokens of public esteem. The father of Mr. Dry was exiled during the political troubles of Ireland in the last century, and after a respectable career attained considerable wealth. The son, the first legislator chosen from the country-born, the colonists saw with pleasure consecrate himself to the cause of his native land. Mr. Gregson, the leader of the opposition, was honored in a more substantial form. A body of his admirers, by contributions of large amounts, raised a testimonial in the shape of 2,000 guineas, and plate with a suitable inscription. On no previous occasion had public sympathy so attended political controversy, and never was the legislative freedom of the country more earnestly desired.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 232: Agricultural Dinner, October 18, 1843.]

[Footnote 233: Despatch, June 28, 1843.]

[Footnote 234: Despatch, No. 34, 1843.]

[Footnote 235:

NO TAXATION!

A meeting will be held at the Theatre.

Auctioneers, rise at our bidding. Pawnbrokers, pledge the public your interest. Butchers, show your pluck. Publicans, prove your spirit. Stage-coachmen, drive on. Cabmen, make a stand. Carters, put your shoulders to the wheel. Eating-house keepers, support the constitution. Boatmen, a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether.

God save the Queen!

August 6, 1845.]

[Footnote 236: Despatch. December 5, 1843.]

[Footnote 237: January 24, 1845.]

[Footnote 238: Despatch, Jan. 31, 1845.]

[Footnote 239: Correspondence, January 5, 1843.]

[Footnote 240: Mr. Maclean's Report, 1844.]

[Footnote 241: Dr. Hampton's Report.]

[Footnote 242: Despatch, January, 1845.]

[Footnote 243: Mr. O'Connor, however, had protested against the police expenses in the following terms:—"Because, were this not a penal colony, one-third of its present police force would be adequate to its protection. I therefore do not consider that in common justice the colonial government ought to be required to defend themselves, at their own expense, against the aggression of convicts sent hither principally for the benefit of the mother country" (July, 1844).]

[Footnote 244: Letter of Captain Swanston to Lord Stanley.]

[Footnote 245: Despatch to Sir G. Gipps, Jan. 1st, 1845.]



SECTION II.

The development of the new convict system gradually disclosed its adverse character, and excited general dissatisfaction and alarm. The press warned the people that an attempt to change the whole aspect of the colony, from a free to a mere prison community, could only be resisted by instant measures. Abolition of transportation was spoken of, although as a contingency rather than an object desirable; and a few only of the colonists were anxious to speed that event. Among these was Mr. Pitcairn, a solicitor of Hobart Town, a gentleman never before prominent in politics, but eminently fitted to lead the community on this question. The first petition of a series unexampled in number was drawn up by him, and offered to the colonists for signature. All its allegations were supported by documentary evidence, drawn from the public records.

The location of the gangs exposed them every moment to public observation. A frightful sketch of their distribution was drawn by the author of the petition. "If," said he, "you look at the last map of Van Diemen's Land (Mr. Frankland's), you will see, at the entrance of D'Entrecasteaux's Channel, South Port. Here there are 500 men. Above, at Port Esperance, 400 men. Above this, along the banks of the Huon, the farmers begin. At Port Cygnet, up the Huon, there are 350 men; proceeding up the channel, you come to Oyster Cove, 250; Brown's River (just above Worth West Bay and five miles from Hobart Town), 500. Taking now the main road from Hobart Town to Launceston (the lands on each side being all settled, fenced, and improved), you will see Glenorchy (eight miles from Hobart Town), 150 men; Bridgewater (twelve miles), 100; Cross Marsh (thirty miles), 100; Jericho (forty miles), 100; Oatlands (fifty miles), 180; Ross (seventy miles), 120; and Cleveland (86 miles), 250. At Perth (one hundred miles from Hobart Town and nineteen from Launceston), there was another gang, which was recently withdrawn. Leaving the main road, there are at the Broad Marsh, 240 men; at Fingal, 400; at Buckland, 250; at Jerusalem, 500; at St. Mary's, 300; at Westbury, 200; at Deloraine, 300; at the Mersey, 200. In all, twenty gangs, comprising 5500 men."

The petition this statement sustained desired the most moderate changes:—the reduction of the number transported to Van Diemen's Land to the standard of 1840; the amelioration of the discipline; the relief of the settlers from the expense occasioned by the presence of prisoners; and the gradual and total abolition of transportation. It was not adopted at a public meeting, but was published in several newspapers, and deliberately signed by those who admitted its facts and joined in its prayer. Upwards of 1,700 persons attached their names, including six non-official councillors, forty-one magistrates, and many other persons of influence.

The committee who took charge of the petition requested the governor would testify to the truth of its allegations and the respectability of the petitioners. In few words he promised compliance. He accompanied the petition with a despatch generally hostile to the object and unfriendly to the character of the subscribers, whom he described as men habitually factious, and who attributed their difficulties to any cause but the right. He asserted that their colonial property was trifling, and that they were encumbered with debt. He ascribed their discontent to insolvency, and their embarrassment to extravagance and speculation. He disputed most of their statements—distinguished between them and the more respectable majority against them—and stated that the number of signatures was due to the indolent facility with which such documents were signed. This despatch (August 1, 1845) was printed for the use of parliament, and soon came into the hands of the colonists. The absence of constitutional channels for the expression of their dissatisfaction led them to a measure which would otherwise be deemed an extreme one. Sir E. Wilmot was the patron of the Midland Agricultural Association, a body including much of the wealth and influence of the colony. They were convened by certain of the members, and the obnoxious despatch was laid before them. An animated and indignant debate terminated in the removal of Wilmot from his place as their patron. No prudent colonist would desire to see this precedent often followed. The distinction between a governor as the head of the social circle and as the chief of a political body will be more readily apprehended when his power shall be less absolute, and his secret advice no longer over-ride the wishes and interests of the people.

Having filled up the vacancies in the legislative council, Sir E. Wilmot called them together. It appeared that money had been provided and appropriated, and a pledge given to the bank to confirm the contract in the council. It was intended to issue debentures, and thus settle out-standing accounts. Messrs. Reed and Hopkins offered to this scheme a decided opposition, and being unsuccessful, they resigned their seats.

The English government at length agreed to pay L24,000 per annum towards the police expenditure, but at the same time excepted the waste lands of the island from the general system. The land fund, elsewhere given up for the benefit of the colony, was assumed by the lords of the treasury. It was contemplated to employ convicts in clearing and cultivating, and by the sale of land to indemnify the crown for the outlay. The governor was authorised by the secretary of state to allot portions of land to ticket-of-leave holders,—a measure offensive to the settlers in general, and found to be impracticable.

The legislative council passed several acts of great colonial consequence. The Abolition of Differential Duties Bill (July, '46) exacted the 15 per cent, ad valorem on colonial commerce, in obedience to the policy of ministers. Thus the inter-colonial trade was loaded with burdens of great severity, and in many instances it was cheaper to send raw material to London and import English, than to exchange colonial manufactures. The measure was welcomed by some sheep-holding members as a tax on Port Phillip sheep, but the government disclaimed any other object than the increase of the revenue. A heavy retaliatory rate was then imposed by the New South Wales legislature. They however addressed their governor to obtain, if possible, a disallowance of the exactions of Wilmot. Messrs. Dunn, Orr, and Stieglitz entered their protest against the bill, and avowed the principles of free trade.

A bill for electing commissioners of paving and lighting for the city of Hobart passed the council (August, '46), and although disliked as an indirect scheme of taxation, was not unpopular. The first election under it occasioned a keen competition and considerable excitement. It was the first instance of representation, but the bill made no provision for a scrutiny, and the returning officer declared the poll against the protests of the defeated candidates. Many fictitious votes had swollen the numbers of their antagonists. The commissioners sat for some months, and gave exemplary attention to their duties; but when the time came for rating the city, the defect of their election appalled them. This objection was long foreseen. An election without a scrutiny might not be founded on one valid vote. The government, unwilling to admit the defect of the bill, did not attempt to reform its details, and at length it fell into disuetude.

A measure of still greater ultimate importance was enacted by the council, intended "to restrict the increase of dogs." A heavy tax was imposed on the keepers of this indispensable protector of house and fold. The multitude running about the streets was felt to be a nuisance, and the destruction of flocks required some check; but the frame-work of the bill was objectionable, and the charge excessive. It will be seen hereafter that the tax occasioned the most serious disputes.

The administration of Sir E. Wilmot was, however, suddenly brought to a close. Reports, forwarded by Mr. Forster, and adopted by the governor, extolled the outlines of Lord Stanley's system, while events were constantly occurring which, amply sustained by respectable testimony, demonstrated its sad consequences. Evils of a serious nature were extensively prevalent,—some, inseparable from every scheme of penal discipline, others aggravated by the excessive dimensions of the probation system, and not a few the result of the failure of demand for labor. The worst effects of sensuality were the most alarming feature of the system, but even they were probably only more flagrant because the extent of transportation gave them a wider range. Remedial measures demanded an outlay and inspection which the instructions of the home government had prohibited in language the most distinct. The ministers, having tied up the governor's hands, complained that he had carried economy to a pernicious extent, and in reporting the state of the prisoners, had passed over important questions. But those who examine the despatches of Wilmot with care will be compelled to question the accuracy of these complaints. There is scarcely an evil which the progress of the scheme unfolded that he did not admit and illustrate. These evils he thought partly accidental and partly inevitable in all penal schemes; but still he maintained that, with all its defects, the probation system, as such, was the best ever devised by the British ministry. Lord Stanley indeed stated that in "five reports from Captain Forster and seventeen despatches from Wilmot, he had either received no intelligence or that their remarks were casual, slight, and few." Thus at the end of three years he found himself destitute of any clear understanding in reference to the conclusions which Mr. Forster, as the immediate agent, or the governor, as the chief superintendent, must have formed respecting the soundness of the principles or the wisdom of the plans which both had been called upon to administer (September, '45). It was thus apparent that the colonial-office held the governor responsible not only for obedience to positive instructions, but for their results; and that, in the event of a sacrifice being required, the officers on the spot would be devoted: and so it happened.

In closing the session (September, 1845) Sir E. Wilmot announced his recall. Although not usual then to address the council, he stated that he could not permit the members to disperse without acknowledging their assistance. A delusion for a time might expose a public man to popular injustice; but however misjudged, either during his life-time or after death, his character would require no other vindication than truth would afford. He informed them that his recall was not occasioned by his differences with the late members, but was ascribed to an imputed neglect of the moral and religious welfare of the prisoners; and he added, that the memory of their kindness would remain with him during the short remainder of his life.

Mr. Gladstone, who had received the seals of office, conveyed to Wilmot the notice of his removal. The despatch is a singular example of its author's mental habits. While he complained that the governor's statements were obscure, he gave his own views in odd and scarcely intelligible terms. Thus, the governor had adverted to the moral condition of the convicts "in a manner too little penetrating:" he had not made it a point of his duty "to examine the inner world of their mental, moral, and spiritual state." Mr. Gladstone charged him with neglecting the vices of the stations—an error in judgment so serious as to render his removal imperative. These whimsical terms of reprobation excited universal astonishment. Practical men felt that the knowledge of the thirty thousand prisoners except by their conduct, to be ascertained by collating statistics, was rather more difficult than the hopeless task of similar investigations in ordinary life. The English press, with some truth and bitterness, described such demands as an encouragement of hypocrisy and religious pretence. No wise or good man will discredit religious teaching, but all such will look with suspicion, if not dread, and even disgust, on the statistics of prison piety—generally false and designing, in proportion as it is loud and ostentatious. The defects of the governor as a legislator were not taken into account. Mr. Gladstone indeed attempted to balance with much precision the merits of the patriotic six. He admitted that advice and assistance to the Queen might sometimes take the form of strenuous opposition to the executive. He denied the distinction between the offices of an elective and of a nominee legislator—between a council of advice and a representative legislature. He doubted whether Wilmot had properly calculated the difficulties which would follow the passing of the estimates, or the sympathy which the six would receive from the people. He censured mildly the accusation of disloyalty, but at the same time he stated the quarrel with the six was in no degree the cause of the recall.

In his last address to the council Wilmot alluded to the benign influence of time on a slandered reputation. This was soon after explained. Mr. Secretary Gladstone had accompanied the recall with a private letter which stated that rumors reflecting on the governor's moral character had reached the colonial-office, of a nature to hinder his future employment. Nothing specific was stated, and no clue to enquiry given. Rumors had been long current, and they were spread with activity. The Atlas, a Sydney journal, compared the governor to the tyrant of Capreae, and referred to his private habits with expressions of disgust. Remarks of a similar tendency appeared in a London periodical. It stated that the conduct of Wilmot excluded the respectable inhabitants of Hobart from his society, and made it impossible for ladies to enter his house. This was instantly rebutted by Sir John Pedder and other official persons, who declared their entire disbelief in these charges.

Wilmot conjured Mr. Gladstone to state the time, place, and circumstances, the names of his accusers, and the exact nature of their imputations. In reply he observed that the persons who mentioned these rumors did not profess to support their credit by any statement of particulars, but to found them on general notoriety. He added that it "was not in his power to convey what he had not received." In the House of Commons a fuller explanation was afterwards given, in a discussion raised by Mr. Spooner, a Warwickshire member. It was then stated that the authors of the report were persons in the service of the crown, both in England and in the colony, and its effect, that the accused was living in scarcely concealed concubinage with several women. These preposterous imputations melted away the moment they were touched. Sir Robert Peel, an old neighbor of Wilmot, was highly displeased with the interference of Mr. Gladstone, and pronounced the charges unworthy of belief. The eldest son of Wilmot appealed to Earl Grey for a formal vindication, but he declined expressing an opinion, although earnestly pressed; and excused himself by alleging that, independently of this charge, there was ample justification of the recall. It would have been no great stretch of generosity had a minister admitted that rumors set up as a bar to employment were no longer barriers to the confidence of the crown. Mr. Chester, a brother of Lady Wilmot, transmitted an address[247] presented to Sir Eardley to the Bishop of Tasmania, for his remarks. He replied he could not tell to what reports it alluded, and could not contradict them; but that rumors of the kind had fallen under his observation which he had proved to be groundless: charges had been whispered, but none had been substantiated (May, '47).

The reports in disparagement of Wilmot originated in the freedom of his address—perfectly innocent in itself, but liable to misconstruction. The credit they received depended entirely on the party sympathies of the listener, and they grew as they went. No one, however, attached much importance to them on the spot. Mr. Gladstone was condemned for entertaining them. He seems more worthy of censure for his indefinite method of stating their nature and the authority on which they rested. The moral character of a governor is of moment to a colony, and a just consideration in his appointment; but when assailed it should certainly have all the protection of a full and open enquiry.

No governor ever was more unfortunate in his political position. He could only tax and restrain. There was nothing in his gift. To the substantial difficulties of the people around him he was unable to offer more than those general assurances which often exasperate rather than console. The state of religious parties increased his disquiet. He had to adjust the claims of churches to spiritual authority. In declining to erect ecclesiastical courts Wilmot not only gratified many, but he followed the direction of his legal advisers.

Sir Eardley Wilmot, like most governors, considered himself the servant of the crown, restrained in his discretion by absolute and specific instructions. Had Lord Stanley acted with prudence he would have left much to Wilmot's judgment; but just before he had dilated with vast perspicacity on the tendency of governors to act in behalf of the colonists, to forget imperial interests, to misapply the funds and pervert the labor belonging to the crown. The precision of his injunctions left no alternative but to obey. Had Wilmot at once declared the impracticability of Lord Stanley's schemes he might have been recalled, but the responsibility of an utter failure would have rested with his chief. The interested reports of his subordinate officers unfortunately enabled him to hold out hopes of success which were never realised and to furnish an excuse for his condemnation. The governor was impatient of contradiction. He had been accustomed to debate; but the sarcasm which falls harmless on the floor of St. Stephen's Chapel, in a colony cuts to the bone. He forgot that the head of a government can hardly say too little of men or measures. In a conflict of words, to an executive chief victory and defeat are alike pernicious.

The usual order had been given that the governor, during his residence in the colony, should enjoy the complimentary distinctions of office. It was commonly understood that his stay would be prolonged; but he died soon after his retirement (Feb. 3, 1847), in the sixty-fourth year of his age. The treatment he had received from the colonial-office, and his death far from the honored sepulchre of his fathers and the scenes of his early political fame, produced a general sentiment of regret. All the houses of business showed marks of mourning. A public funeral, attended by the administrator and the newly-arrived governor, was thronged by the citizens. It had been officially arranged that, except the ministering priest, the clergy of all denominations should walk in their several classes, but in one body, and the archdeacon, the moderator, and the vicar-general, as representatives of the three endowed churches, abreast. The Anglican clergy evaded this plan by stepping up before the coffin. When, however, the bearers were in motion, the catholic priests, by a rapid evolution, shot a-head of the procession. An ornamented Gothic tomb was erected in St. David's burial-ground to the memory of Sir Eardley Wilmot by subscription. It stands near the highway. His remains were interred close to the tomb of Collins.

Sir John Eardley Eardley-Wilmot was descended from the ancient family of Eardley of Audely, Staffordshire. He was grandson of Wilmot, lord chief justice of the court of common pleas—a judge celebrated for justice and piety. Sir E. Wilmot was twice married,—first to Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. Parry, of Bath; and afterwards to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir R. Chester, of Bush Hall, Staffordshire.

Charles Joseph Latrobe, Esq., Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, and subsequently first governor of that territory, now called Victoria, superseded Sir E. Wilmot (October 13, 1846). During his short stay as "administrator" he was employed in a careful scrutiny of the probation department. In performing this difficult duty he displayed exemplary activity and decision. He resolved to remove every officer chargeable with incapacity or neglect, and thus many were dismissed. This promptitude exposed him to imputations of harshness; but although it is probable he did not wholly escape errors of judgment, the chief acts of his administration were amply vindicated by the facts he saw. The opinions he expressed sustained the colonial impressions respecting the convict system. While he suggested many improvements in its details, he concurred with the general wish for its extinction. Mr. Latrobe never met the legislative council; and his government being limited to the established routine, left nothing to record.

FOOTNOTES:

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

[Footnote 247: The following is the address, to which 250 names were appended:—"To Sir J. E. E. Wilmot, Bart.—We the undersigned, inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land, having heard that your recall has been influenced by reports injurious to your moral character, during your administration of the government of this colony, deem it to be a duty which we owe to truth and justice to express our unqualified contradiction of those reports, and we feel the more imperatively called upon to do so, from the fact of many of us having differed in opinion upon various measures of your government. Upon the occasion of your retirement into private life, we have to assure you that you carry with you our best wishes for your future welfare."]



HISTORY OF TASMANIA.

FROM 1847 TO 1852.



FROM 1847 TO 1852.



SECTION I.

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

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

It has been seen that under the government of Sir E. Wilmot an act was passed to restrict the increase of dogs, and another levying 15 per cent. duties. The owners of dogs were required to take out a license, and the proceeds of the tax were carried to the general revenue. Some of the settlers never complied with this ordinance, and others paid under protest. According to the opinion of several lawyers the council by this enactment had exceeded its powers. The act of parliament by which the council was constituted contained a provision to the effect that a tax should be levied only for local purposes, "to be distinctly and particularly stated in the body of the bill." It was contended that the restriction was violated, since the Dog Act contained no specific appropriation, and the amount was carried to the general revenue. The government, willing to avoid the trial of this point, did not hasten to enforce the penalty. It was understood that Judge Montagu had not obtained a license for dogs on his premises, and Mr. Morgan, then editor of the Britannia, announced to the government that he was an owner of dogs, that he had paid no license fee, and intended to pay none. The chief constable was directed to recover the penalties. Mr. Morgan being fined, appealed to the quarter sessions, and then to the supreme court. The judges, having heard the arguments of counsel, declared that the Dog Act imposed a tax and exceeded the powers of the council. They therefore annulled the decision of the inferior courts (Nov. 22, 1847).

The views which dictated this judgment affected a more important act—the Differential Duties. Several merchants paid these charges under protest, and entered their suit for recovery. A revenue of 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.[248]

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."[249] At this stage of the proceedings the warrant constituting the legislative councillors reached the governor, and the opinion of the chief justice was of less moment to the executive.

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

That the "Doubts Bill," so called, was inconsistent with the limitations of the council, has been virtually determined by a retrospective clause in the recent constitutional act, which cures the defect of these taxing clauses, and takes the question of legality from the future judgment of the court. By the act of 9 Geo. IV., sec. 83, the governor possessed powers sufficiently ample to pass, without notice or delay, any measure, and to adhere to its provisions in a pressing emergency; but the prohibition of taxes, for all but strictly local purposes, was peremptory and explicit.

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