FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[248]The council derived their powers from the Act 9 of George IV., c. 83. They were permitted to enact ordinances "for the good government of the colony," but they were forbidden to impose taxes, except for local purposes; and they were ordered to state "distinctly and particularly in the body" of every law the purposes to which the tax should be applied; and thus to prevent the evasion of the prohibitory clause intended to protect the subject. It was not worth while to enquire whether the view of the judges of the legality of the act in the case of Symonsv.Morgan was in harmony with the parliamentary act, because the question merged in one of much greater importance—Whether they could take that act into consideration at all? It was of far more consequence to know whether the colony had a remedy against the usurpation of the legislative council, than to decide whether Messrs. Horne and Fleming were better lawyers than Sir John Pedder and Mr. Justice Montagu. "The powers of a subordinate legislature," says a distinguished writer, "are expressly or tacitly delegated by the supreme government. In order, therefore, to determine whether an act of the legislature has a binding force, it is necessary to look at the extent of the delegation. If the act be not within the scope of the delegation, it is without binding force, and can be annulled before a competent tribunal" (Lewis on Dependencies). Sir Wm. Denison stated that the silence of the Judges for fourteen days after the act was passed,—whatever might have been the cause of that silence—ignorance, indolence, sickness, or corruption,—rendered the most unlawful stretch of power on the part of the council, including the total subversion of all the limitary clauses, binding upon the colony, and if sanctioned by the Queen, through the same ministerial inadvertence or corruption, binding for ever. Judging of the intentions of parliament by the general character of colonial legislation and by the cautious wording of this act, it could scarcely be imagined that they suspended the public safety on such a thread. That Englishmen should be deprived of their rights, without the possibility of appeal, by the inadvertence of a judge—not sitting in a court of justice, but in his own chamber—would be to legislate by accident. Sir Wm. Denison relied on the despatch of Sir George Murray (1828), which accompanied the Act 9 Geo. IV., known as the "Huskisson Act." The former practice was to require the governor to submit to the judge the draft of a bill before it was laid upon the table of the council chamber, no principle of colonial law being more "firmly established than that a colonial legislature cannot enact statutes repugnant to the law of England." The judge (he said) "might have found himself often required in open court to deny the validity of a colonial ordinance, on the ground of repugnancy." By the Act in question "provision was made for fully learning the views of the judges upon the law, and for preventing their refusing to execute any law that may be passed after a full consideration of their objections." Thus it was intended to "combine, as far as possible, the advantage of a strict observance of a general rule, and a harmony between the judges and the legislature." It was therefore clear that the power given to the judges to stop the enforcement of any illegal ordinance continued until their objections—whenever and wherever they might arise—had been "fully considered."—Hobart Town Courier.[249]Parl. papers, July. 1848.[250]Despatch, August, 1838.[251]Despatch to Earl Grey, 1848.

[248]The council derived their powers from the Act 9 of George IV., c. 83. They were permitted to enact ordinances "for the good government of the colony," but they were forbidden to impose taxes, except for local purposes; and they were ordered to state "distinctly and particularly in the body" of every law the purposes to which the tax should be applied; and thus to prevent the evasion of the prohibitory clause intended to protect the subject. It was not worth while to enquire whether the view of the judges of the legality of the act in the case of Symonsv.Morgan was in harmony with the parliamentary act, because the question merged in one of much greater importance—Whether they could take that act into consideration at all? It was of far more consequence to know whether the colony had a remedy against the usurpation of the legislative council, than to decide whether Messrs. Horne and Fleming were better lawyers than Sir John Pedder and Mr. Justice Montagu. "The powers of a subordinate legislature," says a distinguished writer, "are expressly or tacitly delegated by the supreme government. In order, therefore, to determine whether an act of the legislature has a binding force, it is necessary to look at the extent of the delegation. If the act be not within the scope of the delegation, it is without binding force, and can be annulled before a competent tribunal" (Lewis on Dependencies). Sir Wm. Denison stated that the silence of the Judges for fourteen days after the act was passed,—whatever might have been the cause of that silence—ignorance, indolence, sickness, or corruption,—rendered the most unlawful stretch of power on the part of the council, including the total subversion of all the limitary clauses, binding upon the colony, and if sanctioned by the Queen, through the same ministerial inadvertence or corruption, binding for ever. Judging of the intentions of parliament by the general character of colonial legislation and by the cautious wording of this act, it could scarcely be imagined that they suspended the public safety on such a thread. That Englishmen should be deprived of their rights, without the possibility of appeal, by the inadvertence of a judge—not sitting in a court of justice, but in his own chamber—would be to legislate by accident. Sir Wm. Denison relied on the despatch of Sir George Murray (1828), which accompanied the Act 9 Geo. IV., known as the "Huskisson Act." The former practice was to require the governor to submit to the judge the draft of a bill before it was laid upon the table of the council chamber, no principle of colonial law being more "firmly established than that a colonial legislature cannot enact statutes repugnant to the law of England." The judge (he said) "might have found himself often required in open court to deny the validity of a colonial ordinance, on the ground of repugnancy." By the Act in question "provision was made for fully learning the views of the judges upon the law, and for preventing their refusing to execute any law that may be passed after a full consideration of their objections." Thus it was intended to "combine, as far as possible, the advantage of a strict observance of a general rule, and a harmony between the judges and the legislature." It was therefore clear that the power given to the judges to stop the enforcement of any illegal ordinance continued until their objections—whenever and wherever they might arise—had been "fully considered."—Hobart Town Courier.

[249]Parl. papers, July. 1848.

[250]Despatch, August, 1838.

[251]Despatch to Earl Grey, 1848.

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

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

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

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

There was, however, one result of his scheme which moved the susceptibilities of Lord Stanley himself. He shrank from the "intolerable evils of a breach of faith" with the exiles of Great Britain. They had been encouraged to expect high wages and ready employment. Such was the fair reward offered. Far other was their actual lot. "Thousands of prisoners," said an official representation, "are going about idle, polluting the atmosphere in which they move. Is it to be wondered at that the Pentonville men should fall?"[252]The extreme social degradation and demoralising contamination to which they were exposed in Van Diemen's Land, and the disheartening difficulties they had to contend with, were utterly incompatible with the spirit of Lord Stanley's despatch.[253]This "breach of the public faith" was promptly repaired by a new series of projects.

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

The formation of a new settlement was the grand expedient. Vessels bringing convicts to Van Diemen's Land were to convey ticket holders to North Australia. Happily for the world this project was defeated. A squatter hired exiles in England, with the sanction of the minister. A demand for labor sprung up. Sir George Gipps informed the secretary of state that from Moreton Bay to Melbourne exiles would be welcome. This Mr. Latrobe confirmed (1845). The settlers associated to bring expirees from Van Diemen's Land. Many shiploads were deported at £1 per head. Thus the difficulty appeared at an end. TheMaitland, engaged for North Australia, was diverted to Port Phillip. The men were promptly employed. The considerable flockmasterswere desirous of a regular supply, while the colonists in general were far less cordial. Opposition was, however, languid; and the occasional apathy of the public and the indecision of the press were construed as assent.

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

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

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

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

This second petition, adopted by the colony (6th May, 1847), was also drawn up by Mr. Pitcairn. The editors of the LondonMorning Chronicleremarked "That they never read a public document more calculated to command both the convictions and sympathies of those whom it addresses. Future ages would contemplate with amazement the fact that wrongs so cruel in their nature, and so enormous in their amount, have been inflicted in civilized times." It recapitulated the grievances of the colony with energy and clearness. It complained that promises of relief had proved fallacious—that the worst evils of transportation were continued; that there were then four thousand prisoners more in the colony than were ever at one time in New South Wales, and that 12,000 free persons had quitted the country since 1841. The petition asked for representative government, the abolition of transportation, and the importation of 12,000 free immigrants at the expense of Great Britain; and it recommended the removal of the men to the colony of North Australia, or wherever they might be required. Meetings were held by different classes in several districts of the colony. In the most populous the feeling decidedly favored abolition. Not the least important of the series were held in Launceston. Six magistrates of the north determined to advise with the colonists at large. The persons who assembled at their call were undecided; the friends of abolition desired delay; its determined opponents deprecated public discussion; but to the majority deliberation seemed necessary, and on the motion of Mr. Dry a committee was constituted who were requested to collect evidence, to make a report, and draft a reply to the circular of the governor.[254]The tradesmen of that public spirited community first expressed their sentiments. A few transportationists induced a respectable shopkeeper to propose thirty-nine reasons for the continuance of transportation, butthe warmth of his elocution and the frequent repetition of "because" in an Aberdeen accent, dissolved his party in laughter. The good humoured logician acquiesced in the voice of the assembly and abandoned the cause of transportation for ever. The meeting convened of the northern colonists assembled on the 10th of May. The committee appointed on the 3d of April having prepared a report, and founded on its conclusions a reply to the circular, it was signed by the chairman, James Cox, Esq., of Clarendon.[255]Many whowere formerly advocates for transportation as it once existed, saw its dangers when they became anxious for the moral and social welfare of their sons. They were formerly but flockmasters, but they had become the founders of a state. They learned from the discussions of the ministers that what they had thought a service rendered to the crown was deemed disgraceful and degrading. Opulent settlers who visited Europe found it convenient to conceal their home, and some less prudent were repelled with unconquerable distrust.[256]In a small community the public reputation is of personal importance, and it was alleged that to neglect the offer of social freedom would be infamy unexampled. To this feeling the abolitionists appealed. "Parents of Van Diemen's Land," said the author of a pamphlet calledCommon Sense, "can you hesitate? Let the timid and sordid doubt,—let them reckon the farthing they may lose! Let your hearts dictate your answer to the circular. Let it be worthy Britons,Christians, and Parents. Shew that you prize your rights, and that you love your children. That land which they tell you will become a desert when the clank of chains, the cries of torture, the noise of riot, and the groans of despair shall be heard no longer, willnotbecome a desert; 'it will blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing,' when your sons and daughters shall go forth, the free among the free. Consult your own understandings, that you may obey the dictates of your hearts. The Sovereign has invited you to express your desire. Let it not be one that will cause the eyes of mankind to look upon you with abhorrence, and turn away with contempt. Make not your name a scorn and a hissing! Perform your duty,and save your adopted country!"

FOOTNOTES:[252]Mr. Boyd, August 29, 1845.[253]Dr. Hampton to the Commissioner of P. P., Aug. '45.[254]The committee was constituted by the following gentlemen:—Wm. Archer, J.P., W. H. Browne, L.L.D., James Cox, J.P., R. Dry. M.L.C., F. M. Innes, Esq., J. G. Jennings, J.P., W. R. Pugh, M.D., J.P., H. Reed, J.P., J. Thompson, Esq., and J. A. Youl, J. P.[255]This document, some extracts of which express the prevailing opinion, was read by Mr. Dry:—"The circular addressed by his Excellency to the magistrates of this territory, has been made the subject of careful deliberation.To his Excellency's first question—'Do you consider it desirable that the transportation of convicts to this colony should cease altogether?' we reply that it is our opinion transportation 'to this country should cease altogether.'In connexion with this question we recognise the truth and importance of his Excellency's caution, that no 'material advantage' ought to 'balance against any amount of moral evil, however small;' we have therefore directed our attention to this point as preliminary to a decision on others less vital.In examining the moral bearings of transportation, we have enquired—1. Are there any moral evils occasioned by the transportation of convicts to the colony?2. If so, are the moral evils now connected with transportation inherent and inseparable?3. Can it be presumed that other, and greater moral evils will accrue to the colony from the stoppage of transportation?It appears that the convicts in this colony out-number the children, and amount to nearly double the adult free population; that since the year 1840, 25,228 prisoners have been transported to Van Diemen's Land and its dependencies; that one fifth only of these are females; that the greater proportion of domestic servants as well as laborers are convicts; that they are in constant contact with every class of colonial society; and that though not universally, they are generally persons of bad principles and vicious habits.The numerical preponderance of prisoners has lowered the general tone of society, encouraged fraud, obstructed the administration of justice, and so far multiplied crime as to discourage its prosecution; notwithstanding 521 persons weretriedbefore the Supreme Court and Quarter Sessions, last year.The second enquiry is,—are the evils in connection with transportation inherent and inseparable?Looking at the present condition of this island, it may be justly concluded that they are.Reason and experience justify the conclusion that the aggregation of prisoners whether in close bondage or in society, must confirm them in evil. The effect of transportation is to force the free working classes from the island, and to supply their place with prisoners. It appears, therefore, demonstrable that as far as they are the instruments of demoralization, it is inevitable, from their numerical preponderance. Their condition affords no prospect of extensive reformation, and whatever evils they may be supposed to create, are essential consequences of transportation.3. 'Whether greater evils may not arise from the shock to society, which the sudden cessation of a supply of labour may cause?'It is not perceived in what manner the want of labour can be productive of greatermoralevils than now exist. An increase of wages must be so far beneficial to the employed, and increase their means of comfort. It is not supposed that a deficiency of labour will increase theimmorality of the upper classes; and no connexion can be discovered between cessation and an increase of evil in any form whatever. On the contrary, transportation, by raising the proportion of the aged, the feeble, and the incapable, would seem to lead to the apprehension that greater immorality may result as the growing effect of want and distress. Even were it true, that the more wealthy classes are safe from contamination could a moral cordon be drawn—even could they be held safe from the effects of unrestricted communication with men of the same language, color, and nation—still there appears no propriety in leaving the working classes generally out of account. Many were induced to settle in this country by representations for which the government is morally responsible. As subjects of the Queen, they are entitled to be guarded against any measures which may destroy their social position and domestic security; it would be difficult to justify the sacrifice of their welfare for the sake of a class—numerically much smaller—however rich.And, in looking at the circumstances of this colony, no causes have been discovered for inferring its decline,excepting only such as are the effects of transportation."The reply to the first query, "that transportation ought to cease at once and for ever," elicited applause that lasted some minutes.[256]In our native land we are looked upon with feelings of horror. An old and respected colonist, and a most intimate friend of his own, had gone home, and had lately returned. He had told him some stories, and he would vouch for the truth of them. When he arrived at home he took his family to an hotel. He had not been there long before the landlord learnt that he had come from this place: he came to him with a face full of concern, and said, "You did not tell me, sir, that you came from Van Diemen's Land; do not let it be known, or I shall be ruined." On another occasion a friend of his had to assure the landlord that he was a perfectly honest man, and he need not be afraid of him, although he did come from Van Diemen's Land. A short time after he had been in England he engaged a butler. He had not been long in the family before he came and said the place did not suit him, and he left at once. The servants whom he had taken from this place soon found out the feeling that existed; and, instead of saying they came from here, they used to say they came from India.—Speech of Robert Officer, M. D., at Hobart Town Meeting.

[252]Mr. Boyd, August 29, 1845.

[253]Dr. Hampton to the Commissioner of P. P., Aug. '45.

[254]The committee was constituted by the following gentlemen:—Wm. Archer, J.P., W. H. Browne, L.L.D., James Cox, J.P., R. Dry. M.L.C., F. M. Innes, Esq., J. G. Jennings, J.P., W. R. Pugh, M.D., J.P., H. Reed, J.P., J. Thompson, Esq., and J. A. Youl, J. P.

[255]This document, some extracts of which express the prevailing opinion, was read by Mr. Dry:—"The circular addressed by his Excellency to the magistrates of this territory, has been made the subject of careful deliberation.To his Excellency's first question—'Do you consider it desirable that the transportation of convicts to this colony should cease altogether?' we reply that it is our opinion transportation 'to this country should cease altogether.'In connexion with this question we recognise the truth and importance of his Excellency's caution, that no 'material advantage' ought to 'balance against any amount of moral evil, however small;' we have therefore directed our attention to this point as preliminary to a decision on others less vital.In examining the moral bearings of transportation, we have enquired—1. Are there any moral evils occasioned by the transportation of convicts to the colony?2. If so, are the moral evils now connected with transportation inherent and inseparable?3. Can it be presumed that other, and greater moral evils will accrue to the colony from the stoppage of transportation?It appears that the convicts in this colony out-number the children, and amount to nearly double the adult free population; that since the year 1840, 25,228 prisoners have been transported to Van Diemen's Land and its dependencies; that one fifth only of these are females; that the greater proportion of domestic servants as well as laborers are convicts; that they are in constant contact with every class of colonial society; and that though not universally, they are generally persons of bad principles and vicious habits.The numerical preponderance of prisoners has lowered the general tone of society, encouraged fraud, obstructed the administration of justice, and so far multiplied crime as to discourage its prosecution; notwithstanding 521 persons weretriedbefore the Supreme Court and Quarter Sessions, last year.The second enquiry is,—are the evils in connection with transportation inherent and inseparable?Looking at the present condition of this island, it may be justly concluded that they are.Reason and experience justify the conclusion that the aggregation of prisoners whether in close bondage or in society, must confirm them in evil. The effect of transportation is to force the free working classes from the island, and to supply their place with prisoners. It appears, therefore, demonstrable that as far as they are the instruments of demoralization, it is inevitable, from their numerical preponderance. Their condition affords no prospect of extensive reformation, and whatever evils they may be supposed to create, are essential consequences of transportation.3. 'Whether greater evils may not arise from the shock to society, which the sudden cessation of a supply of labour may cause?'It is not perceived in what manner the want of labour can be productive of greatermoralevils than now exist. An increase of wages must be so far beneficial to the employed, and increase their means of comfort. It is not supposed that a deficiency of labour will increase theimmorality of the upper classes; and no connexion can be discovered between cessation and an increase of evil in any form whatever. On the contrary, transportation, by raising the proportion of the aged, the feeble, and the incapable, would seem to lead to the apprehension that greater immorality may result as the growing effect of want and distress. Even were it true, that the more wealthy classes are safe from contamination could a moral cordon be drawn—even could they be held safe from the effects of unrestricted communication with men of the same language, color, and nation—still there appears no propriety in leaving the working classes generally out of account. Many were induced to settle in this country by representations for which the government is morally responsible. As subjects of the Queen, they are entitled to be guarded against any measures which may destroy their social position and domestic security; it would be difficult to justify the sacrifice of their welfare for the sake of a class—numerically much smaller—however rich.And, in looking at the circumstances of this colony, no causes have been discovered for inferring its decline,excepting only such as are the effects of transportation."The reply to the first query, "that transportation ought to cease at once and for ever," elicited applause that lasted some minutes.

[255]This document, some extracts of which express the prevailing opinion, was read by Mr. Dry:—

"The circular addressed by his Excellency to the magistrates of this territory, has been made the subject of careful deliberation.

To his Excellency's first question—'Do you consider it desirable that the transportation of convicts to this colony should cease altogether?' we reply that it is our opinion transportation 'to this country should cease altogether.'

In connexion with this question we recognise the truth and importance of his Excellency's caution, that no 'material advantage' ought to 'balance against any amount of moral evil, however small;' we have therefore directed our attention to this point as preliminary to a decision on others less vital.

In examining the moral bearings of transportation, we have enquired—

1. Are there any moral evils occasioned by the transportation of convicts to the colony?

2. If so, are the moral evils now connected with transportation inherent and inseparable?

3. Can it be presumed that other, and greater moral evils will accrue to the colony from the stoppage of transportation?

It appears that the convicts in this colony out-number the children, and amount to nearly double the adult free population; that since the year 1840, 25,228 prisoners have been transported to Van Diemen's Land and its dependencies; that one fifth only of these are females; that the greater proportion of domestic servants as well as laborers are convicts; that they are in constant contact with every class of colonial society; and that though not universally, they are generally persons of bad principles and vicious habits.

The numerical preponderance of prisoners has lowered the general tone of society, encouraged fraud, obstructed the administration of justice, and so far multiplied crime as to discourage its prosecution; notwithstanding 521 persons weretriedbefore the Supreme Court and Quarter Sessions, last year.

The second enquiry is,—are the evils in connection with transportation inherent and inseparable?

Looking at the present condition of this island, it may be justly concluded that they are.

Reason and experience justify the conclusion that the aggregation of prisoners whether in close bondage or in society, must confirm them in evil. The effect of transportation is to force the free working classes from the island, and to supply their place with prisoners. It appears, therefore, demonstrable that as far as they are the instruments of demoralization, it is inevitable, from their numerical preponderance. Their condition affords no prospect of extensive reformation, and whatever evils they may be supposed to create, are essential consequences of transportation.

3. 'Whether greater evils may not arise from the shock to society, which the sudden cessation of a supply of labour may cause?'

It is not perceived in what manner the want of labour can be productive of greatermoralevils than now exist. An increase of wages must be so far beneficial to the employed, and increase their means of comfort. It is not supposed that a deficiency of labour will increase theimmorality of the upper classes; and no connexion can be discovered between cessation and an increase of evil in any form whatever. On the contrary, transportation, by raising the proportion of the aged, the feeble, and the incapable, would seem to lead to the apprehension that greater immorality may result as the growing effect of want and distress. Even were it true, that the more wealthy classes are safe from contamination could a moral cordon be drawn—even could they be held safe from the effects of unrestricted communication with men of the same language, color, and nation—still there appears no propriety in leaving the working classes generally out of account. Many were induced to settle in this country by representations for which the government is morally responsible. As subjects of the Queen, they are entitled to be guarded against any measures which may destroy their social position and domestic security; it would be difficult to justify the sacrifice of their welfare for the sake of a class—numerically much smaller—however rich.

And, in looking at the circumstances of this colony, no causes have been discovered for inferring its decline,excepting only such as are the effects of transportation."

The reply to the first query, "that transportation ought to cease at once and for ever," elicited applause that lasted some minutes.

[256]In our native land we are looked upon with feelings of horror. An old and respected colonist, and a most intimate friend of his own, had gone home, and had lately returned. He had told him some stories, and he would vouch for the truth of them. When he arrived at home he took his family to an hotel. He had not been there long before the landlord learnt that he had come from this place: he came to him with a face full of concern, and said, "You did not tell me, sir, that you came from Van Diemen's Land; do not let it be known, or I shall be ruined." On another occasion a friend of his had to assure the landlord that he was a perfectly honest man, and he need not be afraid of him, although he did come from Van Diemen's Land. A short time after he had been in England he engaged a butler. He had not been long in the family before he came and said the place did not suit him, and he left at once. The servants whom he had taken from this place soon found out the feeling that existed; and, instead of saying they came from here, they used to say they came from India.—Speech of Robert Officer, M. D., at Hobart Town Meeting.

The benefit derived from Mr. M'Lachlan's efforts was apparent to all. But he was returning to Van Diemen's Land. The New South Wales legislature engaged the Honourable F. Scott, M.P., to watch over their concerns. To this Lord Stanley demurred. He said a retainer for a colony was inconsistent with the standing obligations of a member of parliament, and that a committee to direct him would usurp the functions of the executive (1845). The old American colonies appointed agents: sometimes acting for only one branch of the legislature where there were two chambers. They were often members of parliament. Edmund Burke filled this office for the assembly of New York, with a salary of £500. The people of Van Diemen's Land formed "The London Agency Association," and appointed Mr. J. A. Jackson to represent them. Their proceedings were adopted by the colony, at a meeting called by the sheriff of Hobart Town; they did not however pretend to public authority, and they confined their attention to secular questions. The subscribers were called together at this crisis. By a vote, almost unanimous, they adopted a letter of instructions which directed Mr. Jackson to support the cause of total abolition. The London Agency Association expressed the opinions of the country gentlemen. There were several other organisations composed chiefly of tradesmen. In reference, however, to representation and abolition, all classes agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In whatever sense Earl Grey announced abolition in '47, it was clear that free emigration was essential to his plan when he proposed to resume it in '48. The funds he assigned for this purpose were sums,—the cost of their exile—to be exacted from ticket-holders as the price of freedom. But these funds were wholly prospective. Insuperable difficulties opposed their collection. Nor was the principle just. The sickly and unskilful would have stood at a greater distance from liberation than the clever and robust. The successful thief could purchase his freedom, and leave behind his more honest shipmates. The criminal being confounded with the debtor, a penal sentence would have ended in a civil process. Earl Grey proposed to add to the free population by the expenditure of £10,000, granted by the parliament, but it was found that the families of convicts were to be the chief participants. Thus resumption cut off all hope of free emigration. Nor was it even desirable while the laboring classes were in poverty. The settlers had the example of New South Wales before them; where eventhe sudden stoppage of transportation had been followed by rapid recovery. They were willing to combat their difficulties alone. "Such," said they, "will at no distant period be the condition of this country should the government prove just. And then, with its fertile valleys, clothed with abundance and filled with life, and its pure salubrious atmosphere giving length of days, it will need no other attractions than nature has conferred—no other commerce than the commerce of freedom—no patronage save the enterprise of its children. From the crown we ask nothing except to spare us from further wrong, and to accept our grateful loyalty in return for the uplifting of a burden too heavy to bear."

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

The increasing numbers of ticket-holders confirmed these objections. They were landed, and forwarded in considerablebodies to seek employment in the interior. Their decent apparel and quiet demeanour made them less objects of aversion than pity. Unacquainted with colonial labor, they were often unable to procure employment. Amongst men of this class many, of course, were disorderly and reckless, and when they were not readily relieved, they were insolent and threatening. They could, indeed, throw up their tickets, and claim food of the government, but only by a process which exposed them to censure and punishment. "Unfortunate men," said the London Agency Association, "unacquainted with useful labor, wander from farm to farm, asking for a night's shelter or a morsel of bread. The relief of these men by the settlers is prompted alike by their humanity and their fears."[257]These statements were disputed by the governor, but they were sustained by numerous certificates, and, in a form more qualified, by several police magistrates. In a lonely locality females could hardly refuse relief to applicants in parties, who pleaded the utmost want, and, when travelling over districts equal to an English county, depended on the charity of the settlers.

These appeals were laid before parliament; they rested their claims on the word and honor of the minister, and on the unaltered circumstances which he quoted to justify his original design of abolition. The pledge was confirmed by the long acquiescence of Earl Grey and the other ministers of the crown. Lord Mahon, a member of the late ministry, complained that Earl Grey had fettered not only himself but his successors. He confirmed the colonial interpretation of the pledge, "most imprudently given by Earl Grey, that transportation should not be resumed to Van Diemen's Land;" and he expressed an opinion "that it was most impolitic and perilous thus to make pledges to the colonists that were not fulfilled."[258]

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

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

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

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

The people of Van Diemen's Land, on receiving this speech, met in unusual numbers, and renewed their protests and petitions. They extended the leagues, started a year before, by Mr. Young, a Launceston mechanic, to discountenance the employment of convicts. These compacts contained various conditions, but they all proceeded on the presumption that petitions must be followed by action. They were, however, difficult to observe. It was not easy to distinguish the different orders of convicts and periods of arrival. The working-classes, to whom the confederation was beneficial, taunted employers with inconsistency when they shrank from the unequal sacrifice. The governor himself described the opponents of transportation, who employed convicts, in terms of irony, and the press took up the reproach, and weekly reiterated the charge of "paltry trimming between principle and expediency." By many hundreds the pledge was signed notwithstanding, and it was generally kept. Many tradesmen exhibited an example ofself-denial and voluntary sacrifice to gain a public object worthy of praise.[259]

When theNeptune, rejected by the Cape, arrived in the Derwent, except Mr. Mitchell, who was detained in bondage, the passengers were pardoned (1850). The painful exhibition of ministerial contempt stung more than it injured the people of Tasmania, and they declared that nothing but want of power prevented them from chasing the vessel from their waters. A solemn protest, addressed to the people of Great Britain, was signed by the chief merchants and landholders.[260]From this time the colonists continued to protest specially against the violation of public faith whenever a convict vessel anchored on their shores. Scarcely any form of remonstrance remained to be tried. For three years the colonists had repeated their petitions. The collecting ofsignatures in a scattered population was attended with much difficulty and expense. To stimulate and sustain hope through so long a struggle was the great task of the leaders of this movement. The parents—the women of Van Diemen's Land—the clergy, singly—all sects together and in their separate churches, kept up by petitions a constant fire. Such a topic could hardly be expected to fix the attention of the people of England, but it derived fresh importance from its complication with the fate of other colonies and the honor of Great Britain.

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next