FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[204]Lang's History of New South Wales, vol. ii. p. 258.[205]An organist of St. John's Church, Launceston, refused to play, and was sentenced to punishment; but was restored by the intercession of the clergyman.[206]Macarthur's New South Wales.[207]"Sir George Murray maintained that this country was bound to provide the means of religious instruction for the people of our colonies: at the same time he begged to say, that so far from approving the maintenance of any exclusive system in the colonies, he thought any such system there,badanddangerous. He was of opinion that parties of all religious persuasions were equally entitled to support, and he deprecated the exclusive establishment there of any one church above all others."—Parliamentary Debate, July 13, 1832.[208]30th September, 1833.[209]"I would also earnestly recommend that provision be made for the schools, in which the children of persons of different religious tenets may be instructed without distinction, on the plan now adopted in Ireland. The means of education being secured, I shall feel disposed to leave it to the voluntary contribution of the inhabitants to provide for churches and clergy. To aid all where the creeds are various seems impossible, and a partial distribution of the public funds appears nearly allied to injustice."—Despatch of Sir Richard Bourke, respecting land in Port Phillip, October, 1835.[210]Despatch, November, 1835.[211]Minute, 1836.[212]Rev. J. Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 13.[213]Arthur's minute, 1833.[214]"The whole of the objects which the congregation desired to maintain, are very clearly to be gathered from the second resolution, and these appeared to consist in maintaining their connexion with the church of Scotland by law established, and the control which belongs to ecclesiastical courts of the national establishment over the minister as well as the congregation; for it is evident that all grants are made to them as a part and parcel of the community of thenational churchof Scotlandas by law established: and it is only in that character that they have claims on the government, any more than the catholics, wesleyans, independents, or unitarians."—True Colonist, May 29, 1835.[215]"Accordingly we find that the majority, if not all, the protesters are not members of the church of Scotland, being either burghers, anti-burghers, independents, or episcopalians, and as such opposed to the Scotish church."—True Colonist, May 29, 1835.[216]"The assembly instructed the committee for the colonial churches to insist on the fair and full execution of the laws at present existing, and on the insertion in any new enactment for the government of the colonies, such clauses as will unequivocally place the churches in connexion with the church of Scotland on a footing as favorable with respect to holding property, receiving a share of government grants, and having their procedures in matters ecclesiastical carried out with as prompt effect, as are enjoyed by those branches of the church of England recognised in the same."—Lillie's Letter, p. 35.[217]Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 9.[218]"I cannot see why the national legislature may not determine what will be the established church of the colony, with just as much propriety as it determines what shall be the prevailing law. A separate and integral part of an empire at large, can have no right to do this. As soon might a number of Cornish men insist upon their right to have introduced the peculiar laws and customs by which the mining operations of the county are regulated."—Letter of Archdeacon Hutchins to Rev. J. Lillie.[219]"But let me tell you, Scotland is not asleep to her rights and privileges: she is still the same independent dame she ever was.... The instant you touch her religion, or presume to put indignity or insult upon her venerable church, either at home or abroad—a church from whom she has received so many benefits, and who has grown old and grey headed in her service—her proud and independent spirit rises. She appeals to hermarriagecontract—her articles of union; and if I mistake her not, she will sooner retire to her mountain freedom, and her 'single blessedness,' than consent to have them violated.Nemo me impune lacesset, is still Scotland's motto."—Letter of Rev. J. Lillie to the Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 18.[220]An Appeal to the Friends of the Church of England, in behalf of their Brethren.The extreme difficulty may be inferred from the following:—"Fully agreeing with you as to the necessity of such an appointment (at Norfolk Island), I have used every endeavour to find a clergyman of the church of England, qualified for the office; but I regret to inform you that I have not been successful, and the archdeacon has been equally unfortunate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to institute inquiries in other quarters."—Lord Glenelg, 1835.[221]Evidence before the House of Commons, 1837.[222]Excepting Dr. Browne and Rev. R. R. Davies.[223]Lord J. Russell's despatch, 31st December, 1839.[224]Finance Minute, 1845.

[204]Lang's History of New South Wales, vol. ii. p. 258.

[205]An organist of St. John's Church, Launceston, refused to play, and was sentenced to punishment; but was restored by the intercession of the clergyman.

[206]Macarthur's New South Wales.

[207]"Sir George Murray maintained that this country was bound to provide the means of religious instruction for the people of our colonies: at the same time he begged to say, that so far from approving the maintenance of any exclusive system in the colonies, he thought any such system there,badanddangerous. He was of opinion that parties of all religious persuasions were equally entitled to support, and he deprecated the exclusive establishment there of any one church above all others."—Parliamentary Debate, July 13, 1832.

[208]30th September, 1833.

[209]"I would also earnestly recommend that provision be made for the schools, in which the children of persons of different religious tenets may be instructed without distinction, on the plan now adopted in Ireland. The means of education being secured, I shall feel disposed to leave it to the voluntary contribution of the inhabitants to provide for churches and clergy. To aid all where the creeds are various seems impossible, and a partial distribution of the public funds appears nearly allied to injustice."—Despatch of Sir Richard Bourke, respecting land in Port Phillip, October, 1835.

[210]Despatch, November, 1835.

[211]Minute, 1836.

[212]Rev. J. Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 13.

[213]Arthur's minute, 1833.

[214]"The whole of the objects which the congregation desired to maintain, are very clearly to be gathered from the second resolution, and these appeared to consist in maintaining their connexion with the church of Scotland by law established, and the control which belongs to ecclesiastical courts of the national establishment over the minister as well as the congregation; for it is evident that all grants are made to them as a part and parcel of the community of thenational churchof Scotlandas by law established: and it is only in that character that they have claims on the government, any more than the catholics, wesleyans, independents, or unitarians."—True Colonist, May 29, 1835.

[215]"Accordingly we find that the majority, if not all, the protesters are not members of the church of Scotland, being either burghers, anti-burghers, independents, or episcopalians, and as such opposed to the Scotish church."—True Colonist, May 29, 1835.

[216]"The assembly instructed the committee for the colonial churches to insist on the fair and full execution of the laws at present existing, and on the insertion in any new enactment for the government of the colonies, such clauses as will unequivocally place the churches in connexion with the church of Scotland on a footing as favorable with respect to holding property, receiving a share of government grants, and having their procedures in matters ecclesiastical carried out with as prompt effect, as are enjoyed by those branches of the church of England recognised in the same."—Lillie's Letter, p. 35.

[217]Lillie's Letter to Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 9.

[218]"I cannot see why the national legislature may not determine what will be the established church of the colony, with just as much propriety as it determines what shall be the prevailing law. A separate and integral part of an empire at large, can have no right to do this. As soon might a number of Cornish men insist upon their right to have introduced the peculiar laws and customs by which the mining operations of the county are regulated."—Letter of Archdeacon Hutchins to Rev. J. Lillie.

[219]"But let me tell you, Scotland is not asleep to her rights and privileges: she is still the same independent dame she ever was.... The instant you touch her religion, or presume to put indignity or insult upon her venerable church, either at home or abroad—a church from whom she has received so many benefits, and who has grown old and grey headed in her service—her proud and independent spirit rises. She appeals to hermarriagecontract—her articles of union; and if I mistake her not, she will sooner retire to her mountain freedom, and her 'single blessedness,' than consent to have them violated.Nemo me impune lacesset, is still Scotland's motto."—Letter of Rev. J. Lillie to the Rev. W. Hutchins, p. 18.

[220]An Appeal to the Friends of the Church of England, in behalf of their Brethren.The extreme difficulty may be inferred from the following:—"Fully agreeing with you as to the necessity of such an appointment (at Norfolk Island), I have used every endeavour to find a clergyman of the church of England, qualified for the office; but I regret to inform you that I have not been successful, and the archdeacon has been equally unfortunate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to institute inquiries in other quarters."—Lord Glenelg, 1835.

[220]An Appeal to the Friends of the Church of England, in behalf of their Brethren.

The extreme difficulty may be inferred from the following:—"Fully agreeing with you as to the necessity of such an appointment (at Norfolk Island), I have used every endeavour to find a clergyman of the church of England, qualified for the office; but I regret to inform you that I have not been successful, and the archdeacon has been equally unfortunate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to institute inquiries in other quarters."—Lord Glenelg, 1835.

[221]Evidence before the House of Commons, 1837.

[222]Excepting Dr. Browne and Rev. R. R. Davies.

[223]Lord J. Russell's despatch, 31st December, 1839.

[224]Finance Minute, 1845.

The education of the people, every where a question of difficulty, has been not less so in Tasmania. In the elder colony seminaries for the more opulent classes were projected at an early period. In 1825 the church and school association formed a boys' grammar-school. In '29, Dr. Lang, who had been at issue with the Anglican clergy on this as on other subjects, prevailed on the home government to authorise the loan of £5,000, to be repaid by Scotch mechanics, to be conveyed at Dr. Lang's risk, and employed in building a college. Prior to this date Dr. Lang had been concerned in the foundation of the Sydney College, of which the first stone was laid, but ecclesiastical difficulties prevented its vigorous encouragement. Vast controversies followed this revival of learning. The government voted considerable sums for the education of the settlers' sons; but the secretary of state objected to the expense, and ruled that the scholars did not belong to a class entitled to gratuitous instruction.[225]

In this colony Colonel Arthur had established a superior school (1834), under the governorship of official persons. The episcopal system was to rule: the children of others were eligible, provided they submitted to catechetical instruction. The plan of the school was suggested by Dr. Broughton, and was calculated on the idea of an ecclesiastical relation to the colony, which subsequent enactments disturbed. Colonel Arthur found serious obstacles in carrying out the scheme, and he suffered it to drop. The Rev. Mr. Rusden was nominated first master; but the question of religion was again fatal to its success: the school sunk into a private establishment.

The project of Colonel Arthur was succeeded by another more extensive in its aim. Sir John Franklin addressed Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, describing the religious elements of the colony, and requesting the arrangement of details for the future management of an establishment. The great difficulty was still the ecclesiastical relations of the settlers. Dr. Arnold suggested a double chaplaincy, and a religious education rather than a merely secular system; and recommended that the head master should be permitted to takeorders. Mr. G. P. Gell, of Cambridge University, was nominated principal.

In 1840, the legislative council sanctioned the establishment of a college and the erection of buildings. The cost was variously estimated from £12,000. The Queen's school, intended to be afterwards a preparatory institution, was first formed. The denominational leaning of the college awakened considerable opposition. The Roman catholic vicar-general declared that the authorised version of the scriptures was a mutilation, and compiled to suit the views of the translators; that catholics could not pray with protestants; and urged other objections, not new to theologians, but which appeared outrageous to a colony accustomed to a liberal intercourse. The presbyterians prayed for religious equality, and other sects joined in the general aversion to an episcopal institution at the public cost.

The government, by the advice of Mr. Gell and the archdeacon, selected New Norfolk as the college site. On the 6th of November, 1840, the foundation-stone was laid by Sir John Franklin, assisted by the members of council and heads of departments, and by Captains Ross and Crozier, of the antarctic expedition. "The college was dedicated to Christ,—intended to train up Christian youth in the faith as well as the learning of Christian gentlemen."[226]The night following the ceremony, thieves overturned the foundation, and stole the inscription and the coins. But difficulties more fatal beset the institution. The pride of equality and the ambition of pre-eminence, not less than tenderness of conscience on either side, prevented a compromise. In private life concessions are found compatible with the utmost zeal, but the rivalry of churches has never been adjusted. The Queen's school, the pilot institution, was not more successful. At an expense of £1000 per annum twenty-three scholars (1843), for the most part children of government officers and opulent shopkeepers, were educated. The institution was broken up by Sir E. Wilmot; and a petition, signed by great numbers, requested the erection of a school on a more comprehensive basis. This memorial being remitted to the secretary of state, Lord Stanley replied (1846) that, when established, a proprietary school would receive from the crown whatever assistance the public resources mightjustify. The direct interference of the government in the education of the higher classes thus terminated.

The schools for the working classes were originally controlled by the government. Mr. P. A. Mulgrave, many years chairman of quarter sessions, arrived with the appointment of superintendent. This office was, however, filled by the senior chaplain; and until 1838 the schools were exclusively episcopalian. The altered policy of the crown, in reference to religion, suggested a change in the organisation of the schools. A letter, written by Sir Wm. Herschell, was transmitted by Lord John Russell, detailing the system at the Cape of Good Hope, and recommending the British and Foreign system for colonial adoption. On this plan schools were established in 1838, subject to a board nominated by the crown. It was intended to comprehend all denominations. The clergy of the Anglican church were from the first hostile to comprehension. Archdeacon Hutchins demanded that if an exclusive system were no longer attainable, a fixed sum should be divided among the different denominations, to be expended in separate schools, in proportion to the money issued under the church act. The laity in general, however, did not object to the union of all sects on the plan proposed; and to the last the British system was supported by a considerable majority, including clergymen of every sect, both protestant and catholic.

In New South Wales an attempt was made to establish the Irish system, the school books of which were sanctioned by the chief prelates of the protestant and catholic churches in Ireland. The protestant bodies were, however, averse to the exclusion of the "entire scriptures," as a discreditable compromise, and met the project with decided resistance. A committee, of which one half were episcopalians, organised under the sanction of Bishop Broughton, called on the laity to exert themselves in the "holy cause"[227]of opposition to the project of Sir Richard Bourke; and they succeeded in its defeat: but when, after their victory, they met to collate their plans for further action, the meeting was abruptly terminated by Dr. Broughton, who declared that he could co-operate in no scheme not framed on the recognition of the episcopal catechism and clerical superintendence. Denominational schools were, therefore, established, and those abusesarose inseparable from a plan which makes men the assessors of their own pecuniary claims.

A committee of the legislative council recommended the establishment of a general system, on the plan of Lord Stanley (1844). They alleged that by the denominational system more than half were left uneducated, and that the thinness of population, the diversity of opinion, the inferior character of the schoolmasters, and the great expense compared with the benefit secured, enforced the importance of a general and comprehensive scheme. Sir George Gipps warmly seconded these opinions, but was compelled to yield to the strength of the opposition offered by the clergy, and which no concession short of ecclesiastical control was deemed sufficient to remove. The agitation of this subject for several years has lessened none of the difficulties which attended it, and it remains a vexed question for solution by future legislators.

When the British system was established in Van Diemen's Land, masters were sent out by Lord John Russell, at the colonial cost. The schools were, however, regarded with increasing aversion by the episcopal clergy. Messrs. Lock and Fry, the last a clergyman and the author of a work on apostolical succession, visited the schools to report on them. They saw, or thought they saw, laxity, sectarianism, and partiality; and they gave the results of their enquiries in a copious publication. On the arrival of the Right Rev. Dr. Nixon this book was placed in his hands. He petitioned to be heard by counsel against the British system. His request being granted, he delivered an earnest address, in which he not only opposed the principle of the school, but reiterated many of the statements of Messrs. Lock and Fry. The Board of Education had, however, forwarded minute contradictions to these allegations; and Governor Wilmot resolved to support the schools until, on a full consideration of the adverse testimony, the secretary of state should otherwise determine (1843). Lord Stanley recommended the appointment of a commission of enquiry, which was accordingly confided to three episcopalian laymen, who acquitted the schools of most of the imputations of their former visitors. But the seals of the colonial-office had fallen into the hands of Mr. Gladstone. This event was fatal to the British system. The scholastic minister professed to examine elaborately the principles of colonial and church education, and came to the conclusion that ascheme of biblical instruction, confided to various teachers of uncertain creeds, was too little for the churchmen, ought to be too much for the catholics, and could only be agreeable to independents. He argued that church teaching includes all that a church believes, and that its inculcation was necessary to meet the fair requirements of religious liberty. Acting on a suggestion in his despatch, Sir William Denison granted a fixed sum per head to the denominational schools, dissolved the board of education, and appointed as inspector the son of the illustrious Arnold.

FOOTNOTES:[225]Lord Glenelg's despatch, 1836.[226]Sir J. Franklin's Narrative, p. 77.[227]Address of Committee.

[225]Lord Glenelg's despatch, 1836.

[226]Sir J. Franklin's Narrative, p. 77.

[227]Address of Committee.

The claims of the churches on the treasury (1838) soon threatened the government with serious difficulties. It was resolved to increase the revenue by prohibiting colonial distillation. This trade had been often interrupted by the ordinances of the governors, but when the crown ceased to purchase wheat at a high fixed price it was deemed unfair to the farmer to restrict the local market for his produce. Duties were imposed, but they discriminated between sugar and cereals, and between colonial and imported grain. This distinction offered ample opportunity for evasion. The distillers employed these various articles at their own pleasure, and paid the lowest duty. Colonial spirits were sold as foreign; and the permits of the police-office covered the transit of quantities greater than they specified. From £5,000 to £7,000 were annually lost. The bill introduced to extinguish the trade was resisted by Mr. W. E. Lawrence and other leaders of the country party. They objected both to the suppression of a lawful trade and the injury inflicted on those who had embarked their capital. The government proposed to include in the bill a provision for the indemnity of the distillers, leaving its amount to be settled by a committee. To this Chief Justice Pedder strongly objected. The government was unwilling to entrust to a jury the claims of the distillers, as proposed by the chief justice; and, not wishing to delay the law, passed it without granting any security beyond admitting the equity of compensation.

The laxity of the distillation laws had enabled the manufacturers to realise double profits, by graduated duties, mostly paid under the lowest denomination. Their gains during the past could not be questioned; but Sir John Franklin was persuaded that it would be ridiculously profuse to pay an indemnity for the loss of profits rated by the success of an illicit trade. A resolution passed the council, "That any applicant having been proved, to the satisfaction of this council, to have been in the habit of distilling contrary to law, has, by such practice, destroyed any claim he might have otherwise had to compensation." To ascertain this fact a "feigned issue bill" was brought into the council. It simply referred the question of illegal distillation to the jury, without assessing their claims. The right of the distillers to compensation was, however, so indisputable, and the retrospective action of the bill so liable to objection, that it was generally opposed; and, by the dissent of the lawyers, the treasurer, with all the non-official members, rejected by the council. The attorney-general, Mr. Macdowell, impressed with its injustice, informed the governor that he could not support the bill; in this resolution he had been fortified by the strongly expressed opinions of his colleague, Mr. H. Jones, the solicitor-general, who denounced its principle as utterly iniquitous and unprecedented: but on the resignation of Mr. Macdowell, Mr. Jones accepted his place, and voted for the bill: defending his conduct by stating that he had expressed his former opinion in ignorance of its details. The public indignation was excited by this apparent perfidy, for which Mr. Jones atoned by a speedy resignation. The financial success of the suppression was mentioned by Sir John Franklin in exulting terms. The law is, however, regularly violated when grain is low. Private stills have supplied spirits more than usually deleterious; and the revenue has shown a decline. The rights of the distillers were recognised by the home government, and their unsettled claims, to the amount of £7,431, were paid in 1843.

The duty of a member of the government to support, at all events, the measures of his chief, was asserted by the secretary of state. If his conscience would not permit his acquiescence, he was expected to resign. Thus, while his oath bound him to advise, as a legislator, according to his convictions, his interest, as a public officer, compelled him to submit to the impulses of another. From this condition the chief justice was excepted,—a condition hard toan honorable man and unfair to the colony. However plausible the reasons for distinguishing between an official duty and a conscientious belief, public morality abhors them; and Mr. Macdowell is entitled to the colonial remembrance, as one among few who have refused to support a measure because unjust.

The extensive land sales, combined with the demand for labor (1840), induced Sir John Franklin to promote emigration. The impression was general that transportation to Van Diemen's Land would cease; such had been announced as the policy of the crown. A vessel was dispatched to Adelaide, where many were suffering severe distress. The New Zealand emigrants were also dissatisfied, and many found their way to colonies where wages were high. This course was inconvenient, and excited great indignation among employers in South Australia, who prevailed on the government to pass a law intended to check emigration to Van Diemen's Land.

Sir J. Franklin disapproved of these methods of supplying the labor market, and proposed to devote £60,000 for the introduction of suitable working families from Great Britain. By many this movement was hailed with strong expressions of approbation, as a pledge of social elevation of the working classes. It was urged by Mr. Philip Smith, of Ross, that "without an extensive emigration and a stop to the introduction of convicts it was in vain to hope for permanent prosperity." Mr. Berthon, of Woodlands, asserted that "before the colony could thrive a better description of peasantry was necessary, which could never be found in the sweepings of gaols" (October, 1841). Pursuant to these views the governor authorised the settlers to select for themselves, by their own agents, the persons they required. Every considerable inhabitant received the necessary authority to ship such laborers, under indentures, at the colonial cost, it being found that useful workmen were indisposed to emigrate except to a master already known. The greater part of the settlers appointed Mr. Henry Dowling their agent. It was the intention of the local government that laborers should be sent out in small numbers by the regular traders; and thus afford time to pay the cost of their transit without difficulty to the treasury. The emigration commissioners objected to all these plans, and set them aside. Indentures were disallowed; and instead of laborers in the proportions required, families were conveyed,or they were sent in rapid succession, hundreds together. On their arrival a financial crisis reduced their wages: the home government changed its views, and resolved to continue transportation: the land fund, which had reached £52,000 in 1841, rapidly declined, and in 1843 Lord Stanley was informed that for years to come little revenue could be expected from the sale of land. The local officers, unable to pay the charge, were induced to dispute it; and they attempted to cast on the agents of immigration the failure of plans disallowed by the commissioners. They evaded the payment for one year. The claims of the shippers were instantly allowed by the secretary of state, with the usual interest; and Mr. Dowling, who had been aspersed by the local government, was amply vindicated by the commissioners. The colonial secretary charged him with collusive sale of his agency to London shippers, and a fraud on the colonial treasury. Mr. Dowling protected his character by an appeal to the supreme court, when Mr. Horne, the attorney-general, admitted that the imputation was unfounded, but succeeded in convincing the jury that no malice is to be inferred from the tenor of a libel when the writer cannot be supposed to be influenced by mere personal animosity. Mr. Dowling lost by his agency more than a thousand pounds.

An exceedingly useful class of emigrants arrived under the commissioners, who readily sanctioned the applications, regard being had to the equality of the sexes. The commissioners defended their opposition to the plans of the local government. They asserted that private agents could never select laborers in numbers sufficient to freight a ship; and they inferred that transferable orders for the payment of bounty on the arrival of emigrants would be either matters of traffic, or that private persons, discouraged by the difficulties of their task, would abandon it in despair.

For two or three years the emigrants were satisfied and moderately prosperous. The sub-division of town property was rapid. On every side small brick tenements multiplied. Every mechanic aspired to possess a dwelling of his own. But Lord Stanley's system of probation rapidly told on the condition of the workman. He stood aghast; he persevered for a time; he appealed to the government for protection against convict competition. For one-fourth its actual cost his property passed into the hands of others: in Launceston especially many suburban neighbourhoods were deserted.The emigrants brought out at so much public and private cost were expelled to the adjacent settlements, to begin the world anew.

One of those seasons of general distress to which small communities are especially liable pervaded the entire colonies (1841-4). A variety of causes contributed to augment its pressure, and to involve the whole in commercial embarrassment. The imports of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land exceeding £20 per head; the high price of grain, reaching 28s. per bushel; the enormous rate of interest, and the boundless extravagance of credit and expense, produced a convulsion all but universal.

The measures of the government increased the pressure of these difficulties. The land sales by auction at Port Phillip were succeeded by the system of selling on special surveys, at £1 per acre; and he who, one year before, had competed for his purchase, found the next section in the hands of his neighbour, at half the price he had given. The settlers in the elder colonies had speculated deeply. Stock and implements were transferred to the new country, under cover of credit. Competition raised the value of bullocks to £30 per pair; of horses to £60; of sheep to £2; the wages of servants to £50 per annum.

The government had raised the minimum price of land; and thus those who were entitled to take up their surveys under a lower denomination hastened their purchases with borrowed money. The London merchants consigned immense quantities of goods on speculation which were poured into the market; the promissory notes of irresponsible persons were taken by their agents: the fraudulent laid up for the crisis; insolvent estates were crowded into auctions; goods sunk below the expenses of the factor; dividends of a few shillings in the pound represented the assets of persons indebted from £50,000 to £100,000; and had not the chief losses finally rested with the London merchants and the English banks, the disasters of the times must have long retarded colonial prosperity.

The effects of this revulsion were soon felt in Van Diemen's Land, where peddling traders had thriven in momentary credit by the union of worthless names on their bills. As an instance: one hundred bushels of wheat, sold ultimately for £40, were transferred to a succession of speculating purchasers, who raised among them £1000, on credit of the exchange from one to another. The governments of the colonies had exhibited remarkable miscalculation. In all the treasury failed to meet the expenses. The deposits formerly realised by land sales were withdrawn from the banks. Debentures were issued; new taxes were imposed. The commercial panic was in full career when the crown renewed transportation to Van Diemen's Land; and thousands and tens of thousands of British offenders were gathered on these shores. The expenditure of the government, though large, was chiefly confined to the Capital, or fell into the hands of the merchants; but it is worthy of remark, that, except one house, all who could pretend to that rank maintained their position.

The settlers were, however, deeply involved. They were mostly induced to purchase at the land sales by borrowed capital. They complained bitterly of the usury, to which their produce bore no comparison; and incessantly invoked the legislature to limit the exactions of money-lenders. To aggravate these evils American flour poured into the colonial markets, drawing their cash and rendering agriculture profitless. The declarations of insolvency were daily. Whole streets of mechanics and traders followed each other. A common liability to the same ordeal introduced a system of dangerous license; and men walked away with their creditors' property without molestation and almost without reproach. The statistics of these times afford a memorable warning to all. To the government, that by enticing the people to purchase land, the general revenue will suffer by their imprudence; to the banks, that by reckless advances capital will be sacrificed for nominal assets; and to the British merchants, that by glutting every store with speculative consignments they render their exports of no value—that they ruin the shopkeeper, whose capital they destroy by the competition and sacrifice of their own.

But the great resources of the colonies soon manifested themselves. A settler at Port Phillip discovered or applied the art of boiling down the surplus stock, so as to produce the tallow of commerce; and sheep, lately 2s. 6d., became worth eight shillings. The discovery of the Burra mines raised Adelaide from deep prostration. The opening of new tracts of country offered a vast field for successful enterprise; wool once more rose in price; the banks lowered their discounts to a reasonable level; the goods saved from the general wreck appeared in the shops of those who took the tide at its flow; and every colony exhibited the signs of returning vigor—all but Van Diemen's Land.

The last three years of Sir John Franklin's administration were chiefly employed in arranging the details of the system of convict discipline, afterwards expanded by Lord Stanley to gigantic proportions, and described in the second volume of this history. Accompanied by Lady Franklin, Sir John penetrated the western district of Van Diemen's Land to Macquarie Harbour, formerly a penal station, to ascertain its fitness for a similar purpose, and some of the perils of his early life were renewed. His absence for several weeks awakened great anxiety, and his return was greeted with a general welcome (1842).

The most painful event of his political career sprung from a disagreement with the nephews of Sir George Arthur, and especially with Mr. Montagu, the colonial secretary. A narrative of this dispute, written by Franklin on his return to England, was issued for private circulation just after he started on his last voyage of discovery.[228]This account traces minutely the progress of a quarrel which all parties concerned are anxious to forget. The power acquired by Mr. Montagu in colonial affairs was considered by Franklin incompatible with their relative position. Inferior officers had been dismissed on his imperative advice, who complained that they were sacrificed because they stood in his path and thwarted his plans. Franklin partly shared in their suspicions, and appointed persons to offices who were unconnected with the Arthur party, and as a counterpoise to their influence. The immediate cause of the final rupture was the restoration of a colonial surgeon, dismissed on a charge of culpable negligence. His neighbors, believing the penalty unjust, remonstrated in his favor, and Franklin complied with their request. This Mr. Montagu severely condemned, as fatal to the dignity of government, and ascribed the lenity of Sir John to the influence of Lady Franklin. He then announced to the governor, in a formal manner, that thenceforth he should confine his own services to the routine of his office, and that a cordial co-operation might be expected no longer. The details of business, formerly prepared to the governor's hands, were left to himself: trifles exhausted his attention: his pleasure was asked with affectedformality, and his enquiries answered with studied reserve. In a dispute with the governor in reference to a matter of fact, Mr. Montagu addressed him (17th of January, 1842)[229]in the following style:—"I trust," said he, "your excellency will also pardon me for submitting to you—and I beg to assure you that I do so under a deep conviction of the necessity of supporting my statement—that while your excellency and all the members of your government have had such frequent opportunities of testing my memory as to have acquired for it the reputation of a remarkably accurate one, your officers have not been without opportunity of learning that your excellency could not always place implicit reliance on your own." Clothed in a profusion of words, the charge of imbecility or falsehood was understood. The jealousy and contempt which had characterised the late official intercourse of Sir John and the secretary could not but injure the public service and divide the government into factions. But this language was deemed inconsistent with official subordination, and on its receipt Mr. Montagu was dismissed. Aware that it would be difficult to justify his note, Mr. Montagu offered an apology, with a view to a restoration. He sought, through Dr. Turnbull, the friendly offices of Lady Franklin. Her mediation was employed, and was unsuccessful; but Sir John promised to represent the past services of Montagu in the most favorable terms to the secretary of state, strongly recommending his employment elsewhere. This pledge the governor redeemed. Lord Stanley received Mr. Montagu with favor—consulted him in reference to convict discipline—heard his complaints of Sir John and Lady Franklin—and treated the governor in his own imperial way. He admitted that the proper relative positions of Franklin and the colonial secretary had been inverted; but ascribed the ascendancy of Montagu to his intellectual superiority; ordered his salary from the hour of his dismissal to be paid; and claimed the credit of great moderation in not sending him back to his office. The generous testimony of Sir John in Montagu's favor was quoted to condemn his dismission. The despatch containing these sentiments was placed in the hands of Montagu, who, with natural exultation, sent it out instantly to his friends. He had preserved minutes of his interviews with Lord Stanley, and recorded his own severe reflections on the character of Lady Franklin. These memoranda, bound together, were sent by Mr. Montagu to the colony, and,although circulated with some reserve, became very generally known. The governor complained bitterly of this covert detraction, and especially of the attack on the character of his wife, whom he solemnly vindicated from that interference with public business charged upon her. No one who reads the dispute will deem it necessary to weigh nicely the reproaches which were current on either side. To destroy or be destroyed is the usual choice of official war; and Montagu had not been bred in a school where more generous maxims prevail. He had conquered; and the feelings of the governor or his partisans were not likely to be treated with tenderness. Sir John is perhaps the only man who ever accompanied a dismissal with eulogy, and the result of his candour will probably prevent its imitation.

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

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

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

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

In 1847 the long absence of Franklin and the 136 persons under his command awakened considerable alarm. English expeditions, both by land and water, a reward of £20,000 offered by parliament, and the earnest co-operation of foreign powers, have done all that money, or daring, or affection could accomplish to solve the mystery of their fate. Though these efforts are not even now (1852) relinquished, the issue has ceased to be regarded with hope;—except by Lady Franklin, whose exertions to rouse and prolong the search have excited the sympathy and admiration of nations.

Back to Index Next