Volume 1 — FROM 1824 TO 1836

SECTION I

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

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

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

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

Colonel Bradley instituted an action against Arthur for false imprisonment: his counsel was the present Lord Brougham: Arthur was defended by the law officers of the crown. There were two questions to decide: whether the arrest was legal, and then whether unnecessary hardship had been endured by the plaintiff. The jury, considering that Bradley's detention was unnecessarily prolonged, gave him damages to the amount of £100. The appointment of Arthur to the government of this country withdrew him from the effect of a legal process, and when Bradley appealed against what he deemed the injustice of his evasion, he was told that he could await his recall. Colonel Bradley next published a statement, that General Fuller had antedated Arthur's commission as commandant, thus to justify the measures he had taken: a charge amounting to forgery. A criminal information was filed against Bradley: he was found guilty, but was not brought up for judgment.

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

The judges, in pronouncing a decision on Bradley's appeal against the verdict of justification which Arthur obtained, in reference to the arrest, set aside the rules and regulations of the service. Their judgment was built merely upon the absolute discretion of the crown in the distribution of military command: they inferred that the approval of Arthur's proceedings and the dismissal of Bradley, were sufficient evidence of the royal will.[141]

This was not the only charge exhibited against Arthur. In Honduras, slavery existed in its foulest forms.[142]

Colonel Arthur obtained the countenance of an important class of politicians, by the compassion he expressed for the negro race, and his exposure of the connivance of magistrates at the cruelty of masters. He minutely described the sufferings of several women of color in his despatches to the secretary of state; and especially denounced that atrocious bench, which admitted a plea of ownership in justification of the crime of maiming. The details given by Arthur fully justify his interference, and the enmity of a people by whom they were tolerated inflicted no disgrace. Thus a mistress, whose careless severity injured the eye and severed the ear of a negro woman, pleaded the rights of property, and the magistrate admitted the defence, although the character of the sufferer was unimpeached. In flogging, the owners often stripped off the lower clothing of the female slaves, threw them on the ground, and fastened their limbs to stakes.[143]

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

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

The state of the prisoner population, though considerably ameliorated by Sorell, was far from satisfactory. Left much at their own disposal from the hours of labor till their return, they were masters of that portion of their time most suitable for dissipation and crime. The extent of their depredations, and the deliberation with which they were performed, indicated an extensive confederacy. The subordinate police, prone to connive with offenders, was ill-regulated and insufficient. Goods were carried off in masses: bags of sugar and chests of tea were abstracted from the stores; cart loads of property were swept off at once. The habits of the populace were daring, profane, and intemperate; and to coerce such materials into order, required the utmost vigour and discretion.[144]

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

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

The first prosecution for libel was at the instance of Mr. R. L. Murray. This gentleman, formerly a captain in the army, had been transported for bigamy. At an early age, while stationed in Ireland, he became acquainted with a presbyterian lady, and was married to her according to the rites of her faith. Considering himself trepanned, he came to the conclusion that the ceremony was void, and subsequently espoused another. Twenty years after, he was prosecuted; but not at the instance of the parties more immediately concerned. In an appeal to the British nation, published at the time, he ascribed the charge to malice; and he made several unsuccessful efforts to obtain the reversal of the sentence. In the opinion of eminent counsel, the ceremony was invalid; and many years after, the judges decided that the marriage of a presbyterian and an episcopalian in Ireland, could only be celebrated by a clergyman of the establishment. Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Whitbread called the attention of the Commons to the extreme severity of the sentence, and were resisted by the ministers with party warmth.[145]

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

The establishment of a court seemed to be the signal for an outbreak of disorder and violence. Many prisoners escaped from confinement, and for a long period a succession of depredators alarmed and pillaged the colony. The settlers promptly tendered their assistance to the government, to garrison the towns or scour the bush. Their assistance was chiefly valuable for the moral support it afforded, and its influence on the minds of the labourer in bondage. The exploits of the bushrangers properly belong to the history of transportation, and are related in Vol. ii. p. 194. The terrors they spread retarded the occupation of the country, and joined with the assaults of the natives made the life of a Tasmanian farmer one of considerable danger. At this time the remote estates were guarded by soldiers: loop-holes pierced the walls; fierce dogs were stationed as sentinels; and the whole strength of a district was sometimes employed in pursuit. Few settlers have escaped assault and loss. Many families, who in Great Britain thought of an armed robber only with feelings of terror, by long familiarity with scenes of danger, acquired a cool courage, which would not dishonor a soldier by profession. The unsparing sacrifice of the robbers captured, gradually terminated the practice of bushranging, and the colony enjoyed a long season of comparative repose.

The duties, levied first by the authority of the governor-in-chief, and afterwards sanctioned by parliament, were collected by the Naval officer, who received 5 per cent. on the amount: he also performed the duties of treasurer. Dr. Bromley, the surgeon of the first fleet, subsequently made seven voyages to the colonies, when he obtained the appointment. The infrequent examination of the accounts, exposed the treasury to undetected pilfering, and the colony to loss: in 1824, a large defalcation was discovered, which, ascertained by a jury of merchants, amounted to £8,269. They recommended the defaulter to the lenient consideration of the government, as the victim of others. Dr. Bromley had been subject to the daily peculation of servants, and robbed of cash and plate, to the value of £500, at once. His integrity was not impeached: the public business, however, had been conducted without check. The per centage was abolished, and the offices of treasurer and collector separated, and confided to Mr. Jocelyn Thomas and Mr. Hamilton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The treatment of Mr. Gellibrand, the attorney-general, who was dismissed from his office by Arthur, for unprofessional conduct, excited great interest in the legal circles of Great Britain. The disagreement sprang chiefly from a trial, Laurie v. Griffiths, characteristic of the times. The plaintiff sued for damages for the illegal capture of a vessel of 12 tons, of which he was the owner and master. The vessel, called the Fame, was found by the brig Glory in Twofold Bay. Griffiths, the owner of the Glory, invited Laurie on board, and made him prisoner. He then boarded the Fame, deprived her of charts and compass, and amidst the shouts of his seamen fastened her to the tail of the Glory. In this condition she was carried triumphantly towards Launceston; but a storm arising, the Glory encumbered by the Fame, cast her adrift, when she was exposed to great danger. The prize-master ran her on shore, and the party wrecked, after fourteen days journey through the woods, reached George Town. The justification pleaded was that the plaintiff had conveyed prisoners from Port Jackson, and was liable to forfeiture; that he had embarked in an unlawful voyage, and intended to visit Launceston to circulate forged paper. No proof of these assertions was offered, and the jury granted £460 damages; a verdict which the government found no occasion to disturb.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stephen, on his passage to this colony was involved in a quarrel, which ended in an assault. On his action he obtained £50 damages. His bill of costs, twice that amount, was published, to contrast with the professional scruples which inspired his opposition to Gellibrand. This bill consisted of one hundred and twelve items, among which the following: "to instructions for replication," "for brief," "retaining fee." Many other such payments of self to self, passed the taxing of the master. After paying actual expenses, Mr. Stephen, however, handed the surplus to a chanty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principal objection to Launceston was the navigation of the river, which was dreaded by vessels of tonnage; but its reputation was worse than its dangers. Lighters, and even rafts, were employed to discharge ships which would now approach the wharves. The Aguilar, Captain Watson, spent several months at George Town, and charged the detention on the river. This was resented by Arthur, who stated that the master had dispatched the mate and seamen on a sealing voyage, and loitered for the purpose of traffic; and sought to excuse the delay by defaming the port.[146]

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION II

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

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

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

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

The Hobart Town Gazette,[147] established by Andrew Bent, the first permanent newspaper, was under the immediate patronage and control of the government, and Mr. Emmett was the first official editor. The articles were brief, mild, and complimentary: they represented the views of the ruler; perhaps, at that time, also of the people.

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

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

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

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

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

Alarmed by the threats of prosecution, the author of the "Gibeonite libel" presented an apology in the following supplicating terms:—"We avow our readiness to preserve inviolate the best and most endeared interests of this community; and we trust that, before misanthropy again can rally his vituperative legions to assault us, we may re-evince to all how staunch is our allegiance, and how sullyless our zeal at the post of probity!" The unfortunate printer could not soften his prosecutor, and was cast in damages and expenses amounting to £500.

In 1829, Launceston was favored with two newspapers: the Advertiser, and the Cornwall Press. Both started together, and both manifesting the spirit of rivals. The Advertiser was the property of Mr. John Fawkner. Its opponent belonged to Mr. S. Dowsett, and reached the nineteenth number. The following are memorials of their fraternal sympathies. The Cornwall Press describes his rival as "an addle-pated upstart—a superannuated Zany." His writings "as the frothings of a beer cask." "Condescending to notice 5 feet 2¼," he remarks, "we dropped from our proper elevation." What that might be, it is not difficult to conjecture, if the rejoinder is to be credited:—"if he had his right place, he would be wearing a leather apron and scouring pewter pots." Such were the literary love tokens of those days. It will be seen, that the quarrel of Arthur with the press, was continued to the end of his administration.

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION III

Captain Dixon, commander of the Skelton, came to Van Diemen's Land in 1820. On his return to England, he published a small volume on the capabilities of the country. He suggested the formation of a pastoral company, with a capital divided into £100 shares, as a profitable scheme. Causes foreign to this enquiry reduced the marketable value of money, and awakened a speculative spirit in Great Britain: projects of every kind found favour—a madness fraught with insolvency, fraud, and ruin. But in the meantime the Van Diemen's Land Company had been formed. Men of opulence and prudence, when compared with common projectors, were concerned in its origin. They proceeded with caution, and postponed the issue of their share list until their plans were laid. Nor did they promise a dividend, but as the result of a considerable outlay, and at a distant date. Yet they drew a brilliant picture of this colony, and delineated in vivid language the riches of its soil, its relative position, and its future destinies. "Such advantages," said they, "could not long escape the penetration of the British public." It was, among their objects, to relieve Great Britain from dependence on foreign wool; to improve the quality of the Australian flocks: this object they have contributed to accomplish.

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

Lord Bathurst consulted Colonel Sorell: he was favorable to the company; but forwarned them that no large blocks of fertile land remained unlocated. The company received a grant of 250,000 acres, to be taken on the north-west coast in one square block; bounded by Bass's Strait on the north; on the westward by the ocean; and by a line drawn from shore to shore. After some debate, this land was valued to the company at two shillings and sixpence per acre, and the whole quit-rent charged, was "four hundred and sixty-eight pounds, sixteen shillings:" redeemable at twenty years purchase—£9,575. In the measurement, one-fourth allowed for useless land. The employment of convicts entitled the company to remission of quit-rent; £16 annually each man.

Mr. Edward Curr, at first the secretary of the company, became their agent. Having some time resided in Van Diemen's Land, he had returned to England, where he published a book on the state of the country, remarkable for its clear narrative and sober delineation. The first ship dispatched by the company was the Tramnere (1826), followed by the Caroline. Some time was lost in selecting the settlement, and Circular Head was chosen. On a closer inspection, the district was not found encouraging. Near the shore the country is heavily timbered, and the high lands towards the westward were found barren and cold. Mr. Curr was anxious to bring his line as far possible towards the sun; but the governor held him to the literal agreement, under an impression that the grant was already improvident and excessive. The whole scheme was distasteful to Arthur: a powerful company having interests of its own, whose head-quarters were in London, might have been a counterpoise to his influence, had it not been pushed to the extremity of an inaccessible country. By the oversight or complaisance of Lord Bathurst, the rule which made the outlay of capital the condition of a grant, was not inserted in the covenant. The public works promised by the proprietors were never undertaken, and their establishment was but a larger farm than common. They ultimately obtained several blocks of land, which gave them command of an intervening country of 150,000 acres, at Woolnorth; 20,000 at Circular Head, 10,000 at the Hampshire Hills, 10,000 at the Middlesex Plains, 150,000 at the Surrey Hills, and 10,000 at the islands on the coast. The total actual cost, including survey, was 1s. 6d. per acre.

The operations of the company were conducted on a liberal scale: artizans were sent out. The proprietors were promised a remission of £16 for men, and £20 for women, on the quit-rent. This was the first encouragement of free emigration to this quarter of the world. A road was opened with Launceston, chiefly useful to absconders. The importation of sheep and horses of great value, was beneficial to the country. The sheep of the company cost £30,000 (1830), when they exported wool to the value of £2,000. The servants of the company left them on the expiration of their engagements: many before. The reports of the proprietors eulogised the management of Mr. Curr, and affirmed that the moral influence he had acquired rendered his government easy and his people contented. They asserted that ardent spirits were excluded: there were no police or prison, and none required. These statements varied from fact. The company provided no religious teaching for its people; and Mr. Curr, a Roman catholic, could not be expected to promote heretical creeds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jorgenson made great pretensions to literature. He wrote a treatise on religion, and another on the treaty of Tilsit: in this country he published a pamphlet on the funded system, and a narrative of his life by himself. With a knowledge of the writer, it is amusing to read the grave strictures of the London critics, who complained that he bounded with amazing rapidity from one subject to another, without leaving a trace of his track: now among the stars—then on a steam engine chasing infidelity—or pelting atheism with meteoric stones.[148]

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION IV

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

Mr. Hood, a surgeon on half-pay, had offended Arthur by a letter: a Gazette announcement informed him that he was placed under a ban;[149] and his name recorded, to prevent his participating in the "favors or indulgencies of the local government"—a help to official remembrance, which rulers seldom require. Thus official and opposition parties were organised: as the distinction became more marked, a social gloom overspread the capital. Whispers were heard with jealousy. The mercantile class, who alone could defy the government, and who were excluded from the "court circles," headed the opposition. "The official corps," said a satirical lady, who drew a picture of the times, "are punctilious; fearful of compromising their rank; all etiquette." The entertainments at government-house were ceremonies, rather than parties of pleasure. As the servant opened the door, he seemed to say, "you may come in, but don't speak." Some more daring spirit would venture a remark, as ballast is thrown out to send a balloon above the fogs; but caution, like Sancho's physician, interdicted the perilous indulgence, and restored the watchful silence. No Dutchman would willingly endure the Humdrumstadt on the Derwent, notwithstanding its natural advantages and commercial promise—a town without a library, and where the common spirit of detraction was exasperated by competition for those favors the governor could refuse or transfer. The presence of power was everywhere felt, and dreaded wherever it could not be defied.[150]

The close connection and constant intercourse between New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land affected the spirit of both governments. Sir Thomas Brisbane, whose easy temper and courteous manner rendered him highly popular, was superseded by Lieutenant-General Sir Ralph Darling, whose administration after the first few months was a perpetual storm. The chief justice, inclined to liberal politics, rejected several drafts of laws which trespassed on the limits of the constitutional act, which he himself had framed at the request of Lord Bathurst. At his dictation, the ordinance against the press was less stringent than intended. The titles of land, the property of masters in assigned labor, he determined against the government. He was considered the tribune of the people. Judge Forbes, a Bermudian by birth, was educated in an American college, and charged with republican tendencies by those who designed to degrade him.[151]

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

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

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

The struggles between the governor-in-chief and the opposition were watched in Van Diemen's Land with interest. The same parties existed in both colonies; but Judge Pedder did not participate the political sympathies of Judge Forbes, and made no pretence to popular applause. To those who check the abuses of irresponsible power something is due; but when the balance of human infirmity is struck, it will not be always found in their favor.[152]

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

Mr. Humphrey, originally a mineralogist, who filled various offices from the foundation of the colony, received a pension of £400; but soon after died (1829). The governor eulogised in strong language his official career.

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

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

By a circular of Lord Bathurst,[153] still in force, it was announced to the colonists that their complaints must pass through the governor's hands to the home-office. Duplicates without new matter might be forwarded by other channels; but an answer could only be expected on the arrival of the governor's report.

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

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

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

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

The British legislature, in criminal cases, establishes a military jury alone: challenge is allowed for direct interests, and magistrates may act in default of commissioned officers; but in civil actions assessors are continued. But the local council is authorised to institute trial by jury, under such limitations as may be deemed meet. It is under this act of parliament that the colony has seen the jury-box delivered up to civilians; but awaits the hour which the law itself foretells, when in recognising the ancient principle of representation it records the purpose of resuming it, "so soon as the cause shall cease to operate which had forbidden its immediate observance."[154]

In transmitting this bill, Sir George Murray explained that by the clause which superseded the veto of the chief justice, it was intended to avoid a collision of opinion between the high functionaries of government. Nothing, however, but the most urgent necessity would justify the governor in setting aside his opinion.[155]

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION V

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

The indemnity due on a returned bill of exchange was decided by the court (1826), on a friendly suit, Cartwright v. Mulgrave, at the expense of the merchants. It was deemed proper to give a high compensation, both to solace for disappointment, and discourage a careless issue of bills. The plaintiff paid £112 currency for £100 sterling, calculating that £120 currency would be required in London for the £100 sterling. The assessors fixed 25 per cent. to cover all losses, and the sum has been allowed by the supreme court on all similar cases to this day.

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

The public treasury was robbed of £1,400 (1827). The thieves entered at night, while the sentinel was on guard, and the rifled chest was found hidden under a tomb in the adjacent burial ground. Three persons, and the sentinel, were tried for the offence; but on the second day, the crown prosecutor was not in his place. This truant lawyer was enjoying a breakfast, while the court and prisoners were watching the door of entrance. The patience of the judge gave way, and he directed a verdict of "not guilty" to be entered. The crown relieved the treasurer from his responsibility for the loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The largest private subscriber was Captain Carne, of the Cumberland; not less unfortunate than Laughton. When no tidings were heard of the vessel, it was supposed she had foundered; but in the year 1828, Captain Duthie, of the Bengal Merchant, threw light on her fate. He had found the Clarinda, Captain Crew, at Rio, who had been boarded in lat. 8° S. The pirates chained him to the deck while they robbed the vessel: he saw a bucket, on which he could trace the word Cumberland. Some of the pirates proposed that Crew should walk the plank, but were resisted by the Captain. A little black boy, shipped by the Clarinda at the Cape de Verde Island, remembered the pirate vessel as often seen in that port.

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

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION VI

Attempts were made in the county of Cornwall to form a collegiate institution, for the education of youth and the advancement of science (1826). It was proposed to erect buildings, to govern the college by a directory of patrons, and to establish a public library and lecture room. For these purposes a fund was contributed: twenty-four persons subscribed £50 each on the spot. A commencement was made at Norfolk Plains; but the project failed, and sunk into a private academy.

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

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

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

Among its supporters, Dr. James Ross occupied the first place: a man whose name will be ever mentioned with respect. His political career does not receive or deserve unqualified praise: as a partizan of Arthur, he sometimes sanctioned by his pen what it is difficult to vindicate; but he contributed to the intellectual advancement and external reputation of the colony, beyond any person of his day. Dr. Ross was the son of a Scotch advocate: educated at Aberdeen University, and some time employed as a planter in Grenada, where he became an advocate of negro freedom. He afterwards established a school at Sevenoaks, Kent; but his family kept pace with his fortunes. He determined to emigrate, and arrived in Van Diemen's Land in 1822. Some error in the shipment of his goods, upon the schedule of which he claimed 2,560 acres, deprived him of one-half. He chose his location on the Shannon, and called his cottage the "Hermitage." Here he was vexed with the incursions of cattle, the perfidy of his servants, the dread of bushrangers, and the visits of the blacks; and he willingly accepted the office of government printer, which Mr. Bent had lost. The Courier, his newspaper, patronised by the governor, obtained a large circulation, and in 1830 published 750 copies. He wrote with great facility and copiousness. In a letter to a friend, he said—"I write my articles, engrave my vignettes, set the types, adjust the press. Sometimes I set up a few lines myself, and dictate at the same time to one or two of my compositors. Sometimes I write three lines of a sentence for one, three lines of a sentence for another. I teach my own children, nine in all, at the same time that I write paragraphs."[156]

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

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

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

An association, with objects more extensive and more ambitious in organisation, was projected by John Henderson, Esq., a surgeon, from Calcutta (1829). It was denominated the "Van Diemen's Land Society." The members proposed to collect and diffuse information respecting the natural history, produce, mineral worth, statistics, condition, and capabilities of Van Diemen's Land. The governor accepted the office of patron of the society, and its establishment was celebrated by a public banquet. In his account of the institution, the founder and president relates that, although it enrolled the heads of departments and the most respectable settlers,[157] he found himself surrounded by spectators rather than coadjutors; who, in the absence of "selfish interests" and personal advantage, could not be stimulated to toil. Dr. Henderson, whatever his science, was disqualified by his censorious dogmatism, to rule. His work was an outline of projects, which entered into every imaginable department of political economy, and contemplated a social revolution. On religion, his ideas were scarcely Christian: he combined the Brahmin and the Socialist.

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION VII

The charter of the Van Diemen's Land Bank having expired, it became a joint stock company, and enlarged its capital to £50,000; ten per cent. being charged upon discounts. The Tasmanian was a private bank, of which the Messrs. Gellibrand were proprietors. The limited business carried large profits, and the purchase of bills, not passed in the regular course of discount, then, as afterwards, yielded large returns. The Derwent, established chiefly by persons connected with the government, was opened for business on 1st January, 1828, with a capital of £20,000. At the same time, the Cornwall Bank, with £10,000, was established by the merchants of Launceston; and the facility of monetary transactions increased on every side. The arrival of considerable investments from India, brought rupees into extensive circulation, and they formed a great proportion of the current coin.

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

The Van Diemen's Land Bank discovered a singular fraud by the cashier in 1828. Amongst the large accounts, which were unlikely to be drawn, he debited the cash which he employed as a private discounter of bills. The sudden presentation of an unexpected draft led to an examination, and £2,000 were found deficient. The money was refunded, except a trifling amount, and prosecution waved.

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

The state of trade at this time wore a deceptive aspect. Dr. Henderson reckoned the actual profit of the colony at 1½ per cent., while Mr. Prinsep, a barrister, of Calcutta, described every branch of business as a path to opulence. In 1829, a merchant sold £1,500 worth of goods at an advance of 50 per cent., and a credit over three years bearing 15 per cent., amounting to £2,250 in all. A glut sometimes reduced the value of merchandise below the London price.

"See, how I am changed!" said Mr. Prinsep. "Amongst all the beauties, I am beginning to think none so beautiful as the interests of capital. Interests alone on mortgage, with the very best securities, is 15 or 20 per cent. Invest your money in wool, and it brings you a return of 50 per cent. per annum: in the whale-fishery, 100 per cent. Bank dividends now paid are 16 per cent. I only brought down a broken-winded Arab or two, and their hire pays my current expenses. Money invested in land will be ten-fold its original value in fifteen years. £200 will purchase a noble property here; £1,000 will buy a fine, healthy, and beautiful estate—two hundred of them already in cultivation. The whole colony is on the advance, and its resources remain to be developed." Such was the bright picture published in Calcutta. The influx of speculators postponed the crisis, and prolonged the delusion.[158]

The increase of capital, and the opening of cash credits, facilitated the operations of the settlers, but tempted many to ruin. The government rewarded the rapid improvement of estates, the erection of substantial dwellings, farm buildings, and fences, by grants of land in extension. To secure the proffered boon the settlers accepted the assistance of money-lenders, whose claims at length absorbed the proceeds of their toil. During a progress through the colony, the governor visited many establishments, and distinguished the enterprising agriculturist with special favor. On his return to head-quarters he expressed the pleasure his inspection had afforded; and noticed in a public order Mr. Gatenby, of the Isis, as a "good old English yeoman," and an example of enterprise and skill. Well assured that his Majesty was desirous that the character of a plain, upright farmer, should meet with encouragement and reward, he added to this settler's grant 1,000 acres.[159] The "Gatenby farmers" were henceforth noted as a favored class; and many, anxious for the same recompense, borrowed, enclosed and improved, until they had not a rood of land to call their own.

The most distinguished money-lender was Sheriff Ferreday, whose ordinary charge was 35 per cent., or less with ample security. After a few years (1834) he returned to Europe, having realised £20,000 by usury. At his death, he devised a portion of his wealth to Oxford, to found a scholarship. He suffered much vituperation, probably with little comparative justice. "His bible," said Mr. Gellibrand, "is his bill book, and his gold his god"—a quotation from Burke, highly relished at the time.

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

The secretary of state directed the public cash to be deposited with the banks. The treasurer was not authorised to retain more than £10,000 of paper, and the Van Diemen's Land and Derwent establishments each received charge of £10,000 cash. During six years, the revenue had risen from £30,000 to £60,000: notwithstanding a very liberal official expenditure, the surplus funds (1831) amounted to nearly £40,000.

The interior communication was facilitated both by the business of the police and the cheap labor in the hands of the crown. The post of Sorell's time was a private speculation, conveyed on foot, afterwards on horseback. On the 19th June, 1832, a "cheap and expeditious conveyance, to and from Launceston," was announced. The owner, Mr. J. E. Cox, drove tandem, at the rate of forty miles a-day: only one passenger was accommodated, at a fare of £5. The practicability of the journey was then the subject of considerable betting.[160]

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION VIII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To prevent the increase of dogs, a tax was imposed (1830). The aborigines possessed large packs, from fifty to three hundred. On the destruction of the aboriginal tribes, these animals escaped, hunted in large numbers, and committed great havoc, among the flocks: farmers lost five hundred sheep in a season. By a single gripe these wild marauders destroyed a sheep, and a few minutes were sufficient to strew the downs with dead. A tax was imposed, from 5s. to £1 each. Large establishments required many sheep and watch dogs, and the cost amounted to £8 or £10 per annum. The constables had summary power to destroy canine vagrants without collars, in town or country.

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

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

SECTION IX

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

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

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

The endowment of emancipists with land, an American practice,[161] was unsuccessfully revived in New Holland, and continued until the close of Macquarie's administration, when Commissioner Bigge recommended that no grant should be less than 320 acres.

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

The king's instructions made no reference to the superior officers; but it was deemed absurd to grant the "greatest gifts of the crown to persons who had forfeited their lives," and deny them to gentlemen bearing commissions in the army.[162] Ensign Cummings accordingly received 25 acres! The subsequent donations of governors compensated for this modest beginning, and the officers obtained large and valuable portions. One governor conferred a considerable grant on his expected successor, and was rewarded, when he surrendered the government, with a similar boon.[163] Macquarie gave Lieutenant-colonel O'Connel and his lady 4,555 acres; to John Blaxland, 6,700 acres.[164] Sir Thomas Brisbane obtained 20,000 acres: 15,000 were given to Mr. Hart Davis. These were exceptions to the general rule. Official holders of land were interested in preventing extravagant grants, which lessened the marketable value of their own.

The survey department, always in arrear, neglected to measure off the land, and an order, verbal or written, was deemed a sufficient title. Not unfrequently, the applicant changed his choice, and migrated from one spot to another. The governor often permitted the issue of rations and implements a second time, to enable indolent or insolvent settlers to till a second heritage.[165] Trade was, however, more agreeable to many emancipists than agriculture. The officers located near them were willing to purchase their petty farms: thus the small holdings were bought up,[166] and the estates of the greater landholders were cleared of "lurchers," who preyed on their flocks.[167]

The small grants of land were productive of much real mischief and little benefit. They fell chiefly into the hands of spirit dealers, and the government permitted the purchasers to consolidate all such acquisitions into one large grant.[168]

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

FOOTNOTES:

SECTION X

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

In 1826, letters patent were issued, constituting Edward Dumaresq, chief, and Roderick O'Connor and Peter Murdoch, assistant commissioners, for the survey and valuation of crown lands. They were instructed in delineating counties, hundreds, and parishes, to observe the natural boundaries and recognised nominal limits. The parishes were to contain about twenty-five square miles. On this task they were ten years employed; but their valuation became available so soon as one parish was proclaimed. The names assigned to the various localities are commonly welcome to the British ear;[169] though occasionally productive of confusion.[170]

The colonial-office published, in 1824, the conditions on which land would be granted: the notice contained eighteen clauses, and formed the basis of subsequent regulations. The secretary of state, however, reserved a discretion in special cases. The parishes were to be surveyed, valued, and sold: for cash, at a discount of 10 per cent., or credit, at four quarterly instalments. 9,600 acres was the maximum allowed one purchaser.

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

A more ample explanation of the views of the crown issued from Downing-street, April 26, 1826. The conditions of sale were the same as in the notice of 1824. Purchasers of land were now promised the return of their purchase money, conditionally, that during ten years they could relieve the crown from an expense ten times its amount, by the employment of convicts, rated each £16 annually. One-half this amount was offered, in the redemption of quit rents, on the same conditions; or, when convicts were not attainable, by expending five times the value of the grant, one-half the quit rent would be extinguished. Grants in extension were promised, 2½ per cent. value on improved value of an original grant, on which five times its value should be expended; or having so improved his first purchase, the settler was permitted to buy a second at half price.