Volume 1 — FROM 1824 TO 1836 (continued 2)

By an order published at the Horse-guards, 1826, officers willing to emigrate, not under the rank of captain, were permitted to sell their commissions; one-third of the price deposited with the crown, to be repaid on their arrival, and rated as their capital, gave them a title to free grants. In 1827, the convict clause was withdrawn: the settler was required to produce £500 capital for each square mile he claimed.

Earl Bathurst suggested to the commander-in-chief, and to the lord high-admiral, that it was desirable to promote the settlement of naval and military officers in the colonies. Circulars were accordingly issued from the Horse-guards and Admiralty, in 1827, stating the terms on which free grants might be engaged. Officers of twenty years standing were exempted from quit rents; those of fifteen years standing, for twenty years; of ten, for fifteen years; and of seven, for ten years. The extent of their grant was made to depend on their capital; but they gave bonds for residence and non-alienation during seven years, or until, upon a grant of 500 acres, valued at 5s., £25 were expended. These offers drew a large number of settlers, both civil and military. More than five hundred grants, exceeding 500 acres, were issued in four years ending 1831.

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

The act of parliament[171] authorised the subjects of Great Britain to visit the settlement of New South Wales "without any license whatever." Persons intending to emigrate usually applied to the secretary of state for permission, and an order for a grant. Their references being satisfactory, they received a letter to the governor, directing that land should be given them, proportionate to their "means to bring the same into cultivation." For some time, the settlers for this colony were obliged to visit New South Wales, to obtain the requisite permission. To avoid the expense and delay, some entered on lands provisionally assigned them by the lieutenant-governor; but were in danger of being dispossessed by an applicant at head-quarters. To obviate these evils, power was conferred on the lieutenant-governor to locate such as might arrive. Applications from residents were received only at stated periods; and when the herds were exhausted by loans, and the stores by the issue of rations, were indefinitely postponed; but such as brought orders from the secretary of state, were accommodated at once.

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

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XI

Sir Thomas Brisbane,[172] to facilitate the employment of prisoners, required that the grantee should, for every 100 acres of land granted, enter into bonds to employ one convict for the term of his transportation, or the average, ten years. By receiving a second convict for one year, he was promised a bonus of a second 100 acres.

This condition was a serious obstacle to the ready sale of location orders. It was not, however, unnecessary: many casual visitors and masters of merchantmen obtained grants, which they sold instantly and cleared a considerable sum. Land speculators were greatly disconcerted by the incumbrance: many were anxious to throw up land orders, and attempted to recover money for the goods given in exchange. A trial (1825), in which Mr. Underwood, of Sydney, was the plaintiff, is a curious example of this traffic. The defendant had given in payment for 21 cwt. of sugar, an order for 200 acres of land; but when the convict clause was promulgated, the land was deemed worthless, and the plaintiff sued for £59, the price of the sugar. The judge, however, resisted the claim, and declared that the order had paid for the sugar, although its sale was clandestine and illegal.

The occupation of land was considered a sufficient proof of ownership, if not disputed within a short period, or negatived by written evidence. To resume a location, as the courts were then constituted, required the issue of a special commission, and could be only effected through a jury. On a trial, in which the Rev. Robert Knopwood was defendant, Judge Field stated that the conditions of early grants were practically void. Knopwood had agreed to sell the estate of Cottage Green for £2,000, to Captain Jones, who paid £1,000 in hand, and entered into bonds for £1,000 for payment of the residue. Knopwood bound himself in a similar penalty to give up the premises when the whole sum should be paid. The widow of Jones sued for release from this bond (1821). The lawyers urged that Knopwood had violated the clause against alienation, and was liable to forfeit the whole. The judge refused to entertain this plea; but set aside the forfeiture as unequal: the estate, according to witnesses, was not worth more than £1,000. The judge strongly condemned the unclerical rigour of the defendant. The celebrity of Cottage Green, now occupied by extensive mercantile establishments, gives special interest to the judgment.

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

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

This error had been discovered by Mr. Alfred Stephen (1829). The secretary of state was consulted, and authority received by Arthur to amend the form. The royal instructions had authorised the governors to grant lands, which they had always issued in their own names, instead of in the name of the king. The judges stated that in every case, whether of a subject or the king, a conveyance must be made in the name of the owner, and not of the attorney. These grants were, therefore, utterly void. In New South Wales the defect was cured by special legislation; but in Van Diemen's Land every grant was subject to an ordeal. Those already issued by Arthur had been legally worded after the defect was discovered; but the government of New South Wales continued the invalid form, until the judgment of the court led to its revision.[173]

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

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

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

To have confirmed all former titles would have been obviously unjust. In 1823, a location was given, but abandoned. Sorell advised a settler that came after to take the land, which he did. For fourteen years he lived there, and spent £3,000: the original owner re-appeared with a Brisbane grant, as a claimant of this property.

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

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

An act, constituting the caveat board a court of equity and good conscience, was passed in 1835. The gentlemen who framed it held the board, "in the sacred light of a court," although the concurrence of the governor was necessary to render its decisions valid. Commissioners were appointed to examine on oath. They were empowered to obtain a verdict from a jury in a special case: by appealing to the judge of the supreme court, they could submit a feigned issue for trial. In clear cases, however, after three months' notice, they were permitted to adjudicate. The decisions of this board have usually satisfied the public: they have been nearly always confirmed, and have prevented boundless litigation.[174]

Many surveyors were employed, who acted in the several districts (1838). The survey of 100 acres was effected for £5, of 2,000 for £20. The list of locations being published, the surveyor-general held a movable court, to identify and arrange the boundaries. It was part of his duty to mediate between the contending parties. These preliminaries being settled, the commissioners issued grants to such as made good their claim.

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

To this, the case of the heir-at-law of Major Abbott is nearly a solitary exception. Being about to retire from office, Major Abbott applied for a reserve of 210 valuable acres at Launceston, and 3,000 acres elsewhere. On the recommendation of Sorell, then lieutenant-governor, who stated minutely the land desired, Sir Thomas Brisbane ordered the ground to be marked off as "crown reserves:" and Sorell, being just superseded, wrote on the order with a pencil the name of Abbott. Several persons at Launceston regretted the alienation of land useful to the township, and petitioned accordingly. Their views were favored by Arthur, and the claim of Abbott was supported by Sorell. Lord Bathurst ordered the grants in question to be given. Arthur, however, again appealed, and the decision in favour of Abbott was cancelled; but the 3,000 acres, reserved in the same terms and at the same time, were confirmed. Major Abbott through life maintained his right to the Launceston reserve, and devolved its prosecution on his son; for twenty years he contested his right with the agents of the crown. During the litigation its value has ranged from £2,000 to £8,000.

On an appeal to the secretary of state, Lord John Russell referred the claimant to trial by jury. He erected a house on the ground: this a chain gang was employed to destroy. He brought his action for trespass, which the law officers met by a demurrer. On his application for a deed of grant, a caveat was entered by Major Wentworth. Two of the commissioners decided in Abbott's favour, and the third, Dr. Turnbull, against him. The usual course was to issue grants on the decision of the major part: this the governor refused, and the case was once more referred to the secretary of state. In 1849, Earl Grey declared that the governor had exercised a sound discretion in refusing the advice of the caveat board,[175] and thus finally negatived the claim.

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

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

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

The collection of quit-rents has baffled the agents of the crown: at first, the amount was too small to repay the trouble of collection, and for both colonies, in 1824, did not exceed £400 per annum.

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

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

To prevent a return to this topic, it may be added, that in 1841 Sir John Franklin offered to mediate for a remission of accumulations prior to 1835, provided all from that date were liquidated by yearly instalments. The total amount of quit-rent is estimated at £15,000 a-year, including the towns.

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

The extinction of uncertain obligations would be a public boon, if only for their tendency to produce discontent and habits of evasion. The reservations of timber and material, and right of road-making, are hardly less impolitic. If the law should oblige a proprietor to accommodate his country, equity prescribes his fair indemnity. A functionary might cut through a settler's estate in malevolence, and destroy the approaches to his dwellings, under terms without tangible limitation. In 1831, the government authorised a party to go through an orchard, planted on a Macquarie grant, to enlarge a road to the ferry at Risdon. The owner brought his action, and the assessors gave him a verdict. The lawyers pleaded the general invalidity of colonial titles, and thus the right of the crown to resume! In 1824, the roads were thirty feet: in 1827, they were increased to sixty; and the attempt was made to take from a location given under the old rule, the increased breadth stipulated by the new.[176]

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

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

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

A large number of persons, by neglect of the conditions, were liable to forfeiture; but among them were several favorite officers of the governor, or members of his own family. It was stated, without contradiction, that the surveyor-general sold his maximum grant for £1,700, when none of the conditions were fulfilled. An attorney-general not only parted with his property, but obtained afterwards a grant in extension for improvements he never made; and a gentleman, who had not visited the country, but was related to several persons of influence, obtained both a country and a town allotment.[177]

Lord Ripon's regulations disappointed many officers intending to settle in the Australian colonies; but against this a provision was made (August, 1831), which entitled them to a remission of from £150 to £300, according to rank. They were, however, to give bonds for residence on the land so obtained.

The ready sale of waste lands seemed to justify their valuation by the crown. In 1832, £44,000 were netted, at nearly twelve shillings per acre. This high average was occasioned by the sale of valuable reserves: those of Ross were sold, some portions at 29s. per acre. The governor complained that the sale of town allotments led to speculation and limited improvements; he therefore offered land on three years' leases, except at Hobart Town, at the usual quit-rent, and exacted the promise to erect buildings of brick or stone. The absence of competition for the country allotments threatened to limit the proprietorship; but this precaution was forbidden by the secretary of state in 1835, when the system of granting lands at quit-rents finally terminated.

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XII

A work of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, professed to detect the errors in British colonisation, and to prescribe a new and more effective plan.[178] It consisted in selling land at "a sufficient price" to combine labor and capital, to collect all the elements of civilisation, to prevent the dispersion of population, the premature possession of land by the workman, and speculation by jobbers. Thus a colony, on this model, was compared to a tree transplanted, the fibres of its roots undivided, and its branches unbroken.

For several years previous to this decisive change, the desire had been widely expressed to relieve the parent country by the emigration of paupers. Sir William Horton devoted great attention to the subject. He visited various districts most oppressed by population, and pointed out the methods available to an extensive removal. The Canada Company, which transacted much business with him while under secretary of state, had purchased and re-sold crown lands; and many laborers, who were transferred at their own expense to that country, rapidly improved their condition. A committee of the Commons sat upon the subject, and a bill was introduced by Mr. Horton himself, to authorise the parishes to mortgage their poor rates. It was once intended by the government to levy a tax on convict laborers, and to increase its amount on artizans, and thus raise a fund for emigration: this project, Arthur successfully resisted, and large permanent resources were discovered in the sale of lands. The parishes were not willing to incur the outlay, and it was opposed by many who were persuaded that the poverty of the laborer resulted from oppression.[179] The intolerable degradation of the poor led to outrages and crimes. Large numbers were transported for agrarian offences, and many others had no refuge, but to obtain deliverance from starvation by less concerted violations of the law.

Agricultural laborers were driven from town to town; offered by auction at two-pence a day; harnessed to gravel carts; mocked by being sent with a barley straw fifteen miles a day; imprisoned in pits, and kept standing morning after morning in a public pound. Such were the scenes which induced Horton to lecture through the country on redundant population and emigration; and to call the attention of the parliament to the march of poverty, pauperism, tyranny, and crime.[180]

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

By the regulations published at Downing-street (December 5th, 1828), the settlers were allowed 40 acres for every £3 of invested capital; 200 acres for every laborer conveyed. No convicts, or any other description of prisoners, were to be sent; but land granted, was to be forfeited, unless improved within twenty-one years. Thus, those who conveyed laborers, were met by competitors who had incurred no such expenses; and the conditions imposed neutralised each other. The settler who carried out labour, found his servant desert him to occupy land acquired by the capitalist who carried out money. Of three hundred persons embarked by Mr. Peel, in a few months not one remained to light his fire; but the recreant workmen were soon reduced to want. Many, under their broken indentures, claimed relief of Mr. Peel, whose flocks had been scattered, and his property destroyed by their desertion. He was glad to hide from their violence, while they were embarking for the neighbouring colonies. Respectable families were compelled to perform the most menial offices, and young women of education were reduced to rags. Contributions of clothing were collected and forwarded by the ladies of Cornwall. Many were brought to Van Diemen's Land, as to a city of refuge: the population, from 4,000, decreased to 1,500, and the ruined landholders petitioned the government for a share of convict labour—a boon which the elder colonies deprecated, and the minister refused (1835).

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

Scarcely were the settlers of Western Australia landed, when another colony, Spencer's Gulf, was projected. The authors of this scheme imputed serious detects to the plan of its immediate predecessor. The low price and extensive holdings, the want of combinable laborers, and the imperfect organisation of its social fabric, seemed to account for its disasters. A body of persons, concurring in the Wakefield system of colonisation, and comprehending many members of the House of Commons, formed themselves into an association, and applied to the government for the necessary powers. After considerable discussion, the minister declined their proposal, and the realisation of their hopes was deferred several years. The more active partisans of the scheme kept it before the public. An act passed the legislature on the 15th of August, 1834, empowering the crown to erect South Australia into a British province. Commissioners were appointed for the sale of land, and for the conveyance of emigrants. It was determined that the price should be sufficient to prevent laborers from buying land, and furnish the cost of their emigration. The company were authorised to borrow £50,000. If, at the expiration of ten years, the population should not reach 20,000, the control of the land was to revert to the crown. With a population of 50,000, they were to obtain the rights of political freedom, and no convict ship was to anchor on their shores. The upset price was at first £1, and, for a time, 12s. per acre. The intended colony was viewed with distrust by the elder settlements for the theoretical character of the plan, and its entire opposition to the then prevailing notions of penal labour. The advocates of the enterprise lost no occasion to denounce the social condition of Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales; where, however, the scheme was pronounced insane, and destined to certain disorder and ultimate overthrow. The appearance of new speculators in the Australian colonies compensated them for these reproaches. In publishing their plans, the company had always referred to supplies within their vicinity, as an immediate and certain reserve. The Tasmanian merchants met them on the shore of the royal province. Sheep were sent over as the basis of their flocks; timber for their huts; and the various produce of rural wealth, originally brought at great cost from Europe. A long succession of adventurers raised the value of produce throughout the colonies; and individuals realised large profits in the trade; but when the arrivals from England ceased, the new colony was involved in whatever misfortunes its peculiar plan was supposed to avert. Many hundreds, driven out by poverty, settled in the penal colonies, and the property of Adelaide became unsaleable: the frail dwellings were deserted, and the land lay utterly waste. Of the Adelaide traders, scarcely a house escaped insolvency, and the loss was total. Those who remained turned their land to account: their flocks increased, and the discovery of the mines happily realised more than their early hopes. The lands sold by the company were freed from the mineral reservation.

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

The coast of New Holland, opposite to Van Diemen's Land, was almost neglected since the removal of the colony in 1803. Various reports were brought by whalers of its suitableness for sheep farming. Howell, Hume, and Batman had explored the country in 1824, and had acquired some knowledge of its quality. In 1827, an application was made by Messrs. J. T. Gellibrand and Batman to General Darling, for permission to land stock, to the amount of £5,000, in the neighbourhood of Western Port. This project failed; but in 1835, Mr. Batman, called the Australian Penn, acting for certain colonists, of whom a nephew of Arthur was one, proceeded to Port Phillip. Several Sydney blacks, under his care, had acquired the English language, and accompanied him thither. This important expedition embarked in a colonial vessel, and landed on the 26th May, on the shore of Port Phillip. The civilised blacks were now decked with native ornaments, and advanced towards the fires of the aborigines; but they had fled. They were, however, tracked by Batman's company, who opened a friendly conference, and were perfectly understood. The natives displayed some apprehension, and intimated they had already experienced injury from the English. Batman gave them presents of tomahawks and trinkets, and conciliated their fullest confidence. Some time after, the party met the chief of another tribe, who had heard reports of the white man's liberality: he conducted them towards the huts; but in their progress they were surprised by an hostile array of the natives. The blacks of Batman's party called out to them, and amity was established. Batman took the spear of the chief, who carried his gun. He then proposed to live among them: the conditions were explained to their satisfaction. The treaty of Penn with the Indians was the model of the covenant with the tribe of Dutegaller. They conveyed a track of 600,000 acres, for blankets and other objects of native desire, and an annual payment of similar articles to the value of £200. This deed was signed, sealed, and delivered by the natives in due form.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1831, a notice appeared inviting the opinions of the colonists on the subject of emigration. Lord Goderich solicited the assistance of the settlers in removing the population which the colonies might employ, and England spare. They were requested to state what amount of money they would engage to afford, and what class of servants they required. Such as contributed to the cost were promised a preferable claim to engage them. The notice was received in silence: no public meeting was held. The servants of the Van Diemen's Land Company had generally deserted their employers; and in the colonies, the valuation of pauper laborers, compared with convicts, was not great; and although some extended their views beyond the moment, the chief object of most persons was to secure a fortune and be gone. The settlers dreaded the vicinity of small farmers, as fatal to the discipline of their men, and to the safety of their flocks.[181]

This notice was on its way, when Lord Howick, on the behalf of the colonial-office, addressed the lords of the treasury, and proposed a loan of £10,000, to be repayed by the land fund. The proceeds of sales were then a matter of conjecture; but it was the opinion of the secretary of state, that these resources should be devoted to emigration, especially of females. He calculated that a growing population would more than compensate for the cost, by extending the basis of colonial revenue (1831). In this view their lordships concurred, and a commission was instantly appointed, to carry out the design.

During this emigration the supply of labor exceeded the demand, and a benevolent society was formed to succour the numerous poor. The governor advised that no laborers, except mechanics, should be sent, and four members of the legislative council protested against the outlay. They stated that the support of 10,000 prisoners, without expense to England, was a sufficient benefit for a colony to confer; that the "poor house prisoners," and the "gaol prisoners," were equally demoralised; and the first more insolent and uncontrollable. They contended that the expenditure of the land fund out of the colony was to complete the mischief resulting from the cessation of grants, "the calamities of which it was fearful to anticipate."[182]

The colony was thought likely to afford a desirable home for Chelsea pensioners, who commuted their pensions for four years' payment. Forty-six embarked in the Science, with Messrs. Backhouse and Walker, whose reports of their conduct explain their subsequent misfortunes. They were intemperate and thriftless, and passed the voyage in disorder. The women were nothing superior to their husbands.[183] On their arrival, they expended their money, and sunk into misery. To this there were some exceptions, and here and there an old soldier may be found, whose property has risen in value, to a competence for his declining life. The land they were enabled to acquire was, however, generally too small in quantity to yield a living, from their unskilled and irregular toil. Their distress excited more discussion than sympathy. They requested the sheriff to call a meeting, to inform the crown of "their unspeakable sufferings."

The home government resolved to advance £20 to married mechanics willing to emigrate to this colony. They gave the parties the amount, who were expected to sign a warrant of attorney for its repayment within two years. Many emigrated, but few paid: a Mr. John Hose, who did so, was noticed for his singular honesty; but the greater part evaded the liability with success. Females were expected to repay £8 towards their passage; but many were minors, and the proof of their hand-writing was not easy, and few regarded the obligation as just. The demand of this pledge contracted the choice of emigrants: many country girls refused to sign their names to a paper, promising a sum equal to the English wages of a year; or to enter into engagements, of which they could not see the end. The ordinary revenue was charged with payment and collection arising from this scheme; but the land fund eventually defrayed the loss.

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

The debarkation of these females occasioned scenes, more subjects of regret than of wonder. Thus, on the arrival of the Strathfieldsay (1834), the fair emigrants, 286, most of good character, were indiscreetly landed at high noon: 2,000 persons awaited them on the beach. Their feelings were outraged with ribaldry and insult: they were astounded at their reception, and many wept. The ladies of the colony protected and advanced them; and some, whose want drove them from their native country, remember the day with gratitude when they first pressed the soil of Tasmania. 1,280 females were brought to the colony in three years, ending 1835; and rather more to New South Wales.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISPOSAL OF CROWN LANDS IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.

Authority. Date.Terms.Superseded.Remarks.

King's sign manual to governors of New South Wales. 1787 and 1789. Residence on the grant. Cultivation and improvement. Reservation of naval timber. Quit rent: emancipists. 6d. per 30 acres; free settlers, 2s. per 100 acres, after ten years. 1810. 100 acres only to any person, over the quantity allowed to emancipists.

Governor Macquarie. January 1, 1810. Quit-rent, 2s. per 100 acres. Cultivation of a proportion (20th part) in five years. Reservation of naval timber. Right of forming highways. Non-alienation in five years. November 30, 1821. Town allotments usually leased at Hobart Town for twenty-one years, quit rent 30s. per acre; 7 only were granted, 1820. Allotments were occupied at Launceston on permission of the commandant.—Bigge's Report.

Governor Brisbane. July 11, 1822. 1823. Omits cultivation clause, and saddles every 100 acres with a convict servant. This was cancelled by indorsement on some grants, on condition of cultivation. Grants liable to quit-rent of 15s. per 100 acres. Colonial Office, November 1824. Notified in Van Diemen's Land, 18th May, 1825.

Colonial Office. 1824. April, 1826. Convict clause inserted. Purchase money repaid, if claimed within ten years, or for the redemption of quit rent. Quit rent 5 per cent. value. Settlers who could obtain no convicts, allowed abatement of half quit-rent; or a new purchase at half price, who should expend five times value of the grants, given or sold them. Convict clause withdrawn, in 3rd edit. of notice, 1827. Town lots granted on specified expenditure within three years, and non-alienation for 18 months.

Governor Arthur. 1828. Land Board established; capital required, £500 for each square mile granted. Land sold at highest tender; one-half left on mortgage for twelve years, at 5 per cent. Precious metals reserved. January 20, 1831.

Colonial Office. January 20, 1831. Order: all land to be sold by public sale; upset price 5s., conveyed in fee simple at a peppercorn rent. Precious metals reserved, and indigenous produce for public works. August, 1838.

Colonial Office. August, 1838. 1842. 12s. per acre. £1 per acre. 1842. 1845.[184]

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XIII

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

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

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

In 1837, the Union Bank of Australia, with a capital of £1,000,000, divided the field. This institution was formed in England, under the auspices of Mr. Philip Oakden, a merchant, of Launceston. With such spirit was the project accepted, that the amount was subscribed in one day.

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

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

SECTION XIV

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

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

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

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

Mr. Baxter, the puisnè judge elect, had been attorney-general of New South Wales. His relations with Darling had not been cordial, and he was disgraced in the eyes of the public by domestic differences: his wife was insane, and he himself was intemperate. Just before he left Sydney for Van Diemen's Land, he was bound over to keep the peace, and was declared insolvent. On his arrival, the royal warrant for his induction had not reached the colony, and after some delay he returned to New South Wales, and thence to Great Britain, where he died. Mr. Baxter ascribed his ruin to his grant from the crown: he employed persons to look after his estate, and they conducted him to beggary.[185]

The lieutenant-governor resolved, if possible, to exclude Baxter from an office which he could only dishonor, and passed an act, pronounced by the lawyers a piece of "doubtful and dangerous" legislation, by which the clause of the charter requiring two judges was expunged, thus constituting the court of one. The act of parliament, however, authorised the measure: the council had power to repeal or annul a patent, until the pleasure of the crown were known. The act was approved, and remains among the laws. Occasions might occur, when the course of justice would be arrested in a small community by requiring many officers to constitute a court.[186]

The reformers were not disheartened by their failure: they assembled again the following year,[187] at the request of the Hornes, the Gellibrands, and the Gregsons. The effort was unavailing. In 1834, it was renewed with still more earnestness: the former parties, reinforced by many important accessions, maintained the popular cause. Repeated disappointments excited some bitterness, which was expressed in strong terms.[188] Mr. Thomas Horne reminded the home government that they would make "a dissatisfied and turbulent people, ready to use their power, and assert their rights, if necessary, by force of arms." He advised the oblivion of minute grievances, and said, "were the angel Gabriel to propose one measure, and Satan another, if he considered Satan's the most politic, he should have the honor of adopting it."[189] But neither importunity nor threatenings prevailed.

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

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

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

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

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

The surplus revenue, accruing from year to year, suggested to the secretary of state the imposition of police, and gaol expenses on the colony. The non-official members of the council, except one, voted against the appropriation. They denied that the supposed advantages conferred by prisoner labor, justified a claim on the colonial funds for the support of a great national object; and they added this remarkable passage:—"The influx of moral pollution has been perpetuated, and the colony doomed for ever to be the gaol of Great Britain, and destined never to rise to any rank among the British colonies."[190] A dim fore-shadowing of that universal sentiment to which the constant attempts to lessen the profits of prisoner labor gave rise. The revenue was largely dependent on the consumption of liquors, and upon habits which generate crime and impose expenses on the public. It received an appropriate destination: funds contributed chiefly by drunkards for the repression of criminals. Such was the apology for exactions enormous, when compared with the population; a view not easily impugned, except that in such cases the interest of the government ceases to be hostile to vices which increase its wealth.

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XV

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bryan was not altogether a martyr. He received upon the whole 4,000 acres of land; and in a letter to Arthur, he wrote:—"Permit me to return you my sincere thanks (as much for the manner as the matter) of your very kind letter of the 11th instant. To the same principle of impartiality which you have evinced in my cause, I leave the increase of my grant, resting quite satisfied that if my exertions deserve it they will be rewarded."[191] Mr. Bryan had then received 1,500 acres; he afterwards received 2,500.

Mr. Bryan instituted an action against Mr. Hortle, the agent of government in the recall of his servants. The issue depended greatly on the manner of trial—whether by assessors, or a jury of twelve. The court possessed a discretion. The law officers asserted, and the judges allowed, that the colonists were disqualified by common interest to form an impartial judgment, and a jury was refused. Bryan then dropped the action, which he objected to entrust to assessors, directed perhaps by a member of the executive: for the same reason he withdrew his proceedings against the police magistrate for defamation of character. He returned to England: sought redress from the ministers, but in vain. On this case the opinion of impartial persons can hardly err. Yet the right of the governor to withdraw men, though not to be exercised in a wanton and destructive manner, was hardly to be disputed. The opinion of the English law officers of the crown favored that view, although it would be dangerous to take their version as decisive. "We," say they, "are clearly of opinion, that under the 9th section of 9th Geo. iv. c. 83, governors can revoke assignment of a convict, of whose sentence it is not intended to grant any remission; and we think there is nothing against the apparent policy of the act which militates against that construction."

For carrying a challenge to Mr. Lyttleton, Lewis was put on his trial. The conventional turpitude of the offence wholly depended on the provocation. A magistrate could not be covered by his privilege when standing in the street, and announcing his opinions to the loungers there; but Lyttleton, himself the sole witness, denied the words imputed, and his cross-examination was impeded by the court. Lewis read a written defence, and reproached the attorney-general with prosecuting an offence recently committed by himself: for this the accused was fined £10 by the judge, who advised him to retire and revise his notes. On resuming his speech, he was again stopped and fined. Complaining that the course required by his defence was unjustly obstructed, he became silent. A military jury found him guilty; and the judge condemned him to pay £150, and suffer an imprisonment of eighteen months.

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

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

Lewis complained to the secretary of state, who referred his case to the law officers of the crown, who asserted "that it is an unwarrantable proceeding, on the part of a judge, to fine an accused party for saying anything which he may consider essential to his defence, provided it shall be consistent with public decorum." The secretary of state directed compensation: this, a board estimated at £1,700. The governor was, however, desirous of depriving Lewis of the indemnity, and the legislative council resolved, seven to four, that the observations of Mr. Lewis were not within that qualification; and requested that, if the secretary of state persevered in his determination, he should pay the complainant from the land fund. Such resistance was obviously official, and without moral weight, and the money was eventually paid.

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

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

The trial was reported by the Colonial Times. The editor, Mr Henry Melville, pointed out in strong language the suspicion of unfairness; the dependence of the jury; the presence of the governor at Launceston during the trial; the infamous character of certain of the witnesses; and the overruling a challenge of a juror by the prisoner. The remarks of Melville were carried beyond the tolerated bounds of public criticism; the attorney-general, Stephen, induced the court to issue an attachment. The defendant was required to admit the authorship: this being done, the judge whose conduct he had censured pronounced the sentence.[192] To judge, condemn, and imprison, at once and by the party offended, included all that tyranny could ask. Any reference to the proceedings of a court, which the judge might choose to pronounce a libel, might consign to perpetual imprisonment. A similar case, at Newfoundland, was discussed in the House of Commons, and the ministers joined the opposition in severely reprehending the practice. The papers published the debate, and Arthur slowly obeyed the signal, and gave Melville his liberty.

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

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

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

Captain Serjeantson, of the 40th regiment, a gentleman connected with several opulent settlers, was murdered (1835). The family collected £500: to this the governor added £100 more, for the discovery of the murderer, who was found to be Hunt, a bushranger, afterwards shot by a small settler, and who dying confessed the crime. In this case, a constable, Drinkwater, proposed to another to earn their free pardons. The plan sketched was to deposit shot in the hut of a man at Campbell Town, who was suspected, resembling that extracted from the body of the deceased. A constable, invited as an accomplice, betrayed the project; not, however, until the proof of its existence was indisputable. The same constable had proposed to throw a sheep stolen from the flocks of Mr. Willis, on the premises of a man, "on whom there was a down."

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

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

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

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

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

These were certainly blemishes, but they were magnified into radical and incurable defects (1835). The complaints of the gentry, induced Governor Bourke to take the opinion of the judges and the law officers of the crown: on the whole, they were fully satisfied with the result of the law. It was remarked by a judge, that the accused would sometimes choose a military jury, or a jury of twelve, according to the nature of the offence: in cases of aggravated violence they often preferred a military jury, but where conflicting testimony was likely to occur, they preferred the greater number, only as less likely to agree. Forbes stated that the chief difficulty was confining the juries to the question of fact; but their verdicts had generally satisfied him. It was the opinion of the judges, save Mr. Justice Burton, that trial by jury had been too long deferred, and that benefit would result from its unqualified adoption.[193]

In Van Diemen's Land, an ordinance was passed (1830), permitting the judge to allow a jury in civil cases, whenever it was desired by either party. The names were twenty-four: from these both parties struck out six, and the remaining twelve were the jury. The first trial occurred 1830 (Butler v. Bent), in an action for libel, contained in a series of letters written, or acknowledged, by Wells, an emancipist, and signed "Simon Stukely." They were afterwards collected into a volume. The chief persons in the colony were described with considerable spirit, but with the usual injustice of anonymous satire.[194]

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

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

This act was framed in virtue of an order of council by the king in 1830. It provided that in criminal prosecutions where the governor, or any inferior officer, civil or military, could be interested in the result of a trial, a jury taken from the special jury list should try the issue.[195]

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XVI

The True Colonist newspaper was published daily during 1835: the editor, Mr. Gilbert Robertson, filled its columns with strictures on government, and in a style which might be termed heroic, if inspired by truth. The rashness of his imputations was never surpassed. He heaped on the governor, and the members of his administration, charges of misdemeanour and felony. One day he denounced them at the police-office, and the next printed his accusations verbatim. He libelled the governor (whom he accused of altering a deed after its enrolment) in a paper, headed "a fearful discovery;" and declared him not less deserving than others of a capital conviction. Robertson charged an overseer of Arthur with feloniously receiving hay for the governor's use, and with his connivance. His nephews, Captains Forster and Montagu, were each accused of a felonious appropriation of property belonging to the crown. For these imputations, Robertson suffered fine and imprisonment;[196] in part remitted by the clemency of Arthur. Such charges were a buckler to the governor against the current scandal of the time. They were transmitted to the colonial-office: they destroyed the moral weight of the press, and cast suspicion on just complaints, yet emanating from a community which tolerated such extravagance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "political association" was formed in Van Diemen's Land: a standing council was organised, under the auspices of certain leading politicians, who discussed the measures deemed necessary to amend their social and political condition. Mr. Thomas Horne, the secretary of this body, opened a correspondence with the governor, and endeavoured to direct his attention to its complaints. Arthur declined recognising his credentials, without an express sanction from the crown. The association, however, carried on its debates. The council deliberated in public: the members were assembled in the body of the hall, and spectators were admitted to the gallery. Their proceedings were reported in the newspapers, but with party coloring. By Dr. Ross they were turned into bitter ridicule: his remarks were retorted with cruelty and insult. A storm collected around him he could not disperse, and he laid down his pen soon after, with expressions of ill-concealed anguish.[197]

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION XVII

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

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

A series of forty-seven statistical tables, prepared by the colonial secretary, his nephew, exhibit a progress then almost unexampled. In 1836, the revenue had increased from £16,866 to £106,639; the imports from £62,000 to £583,646; the exports from £14,500 to £320,679; mills from 5 to 47; colonial vessels from 1 to 71; churches from 4 to 18: the population had risen from 12,000 to 40,000; and every branch of public and private enterprise exhibited the same general aspect.

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

The great demand for sheep and cattle, created by the establishment of new colonies, gave a temporary respite: flocks were sold at £2 per head, and were purchased in large quantities. These ameliorations were only transient, and the wide regions open to adventure lessened the worth of those properties which had been valued by the farms of Great Britain, not the unpeopled wilds of New Holland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The patronage permitted to Arthur was enormous: to a large extent he was the almoner of the crown. Thus disaffection became highly penal: a quarrel with a magistrate, or a friendly intercourse with persons under a ban, exposed the delinquent to serious pecuniary loss. These considerations were avowed.[198] The dread of injury made the timid servile, and corrupted private intercourse. A secret influence pervaded every rank: society was embittered by suspicions and the dread of denunciation; and had not the growth of population decreased the comparative power of the government, or had its original plan been perpetuated, it must have formed a community of slanderers and slaves. The intentions of the governor, however just, could not save him from the falsehood of spies, and thus the perpetration of wrong. It was early announced that opponents would be "crushed." The extent of the "crushing system" was greatly exaggerated, and even the course of good government was commonly ascribed by the sufferer to official enmity and avarice.

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

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