Читать книгу History of Tasmania - John West - Страница 42

SECTION XIV

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

[185] Letter to Darling, 1830.

Major Mudie says—"Being scarcely ever sober, he left his business to be done by a convict clerk, who had been a lawyer of some sort previous to his transportation from England."—p. 245.

[186] 9th Geo. iv. sec. 22.

[187] August 13, 1832.

[188] Captain Glover stated, that the events of the 23rd of May had been dramatised in the following strain:—The ambassador of that meeting was admitted to the king: "Ho, ho, Mr. Ambassador," said the king, "the people of Van Diemen's Land want an assembly, do they; what do they want it for?" The posed ambassador replies, "Because they do, your Majesty." "Because they do, Mr. Ambassador, is that the reason they gave?" "Please your Majesty, I am not certain they gave that reason." "What do you think of that, Goderich?" says the king. "Oh, all nonsense," said Goderich. The ambassador, on retiring, requested an answer, and was informed, "there was none." The ambassador, in his turn, asked the reason. "Why because we wont—that's all."

[189] From the Tasmanian report of meeting.