Читать книгу Mutiny; and the Trial of Lt. Col. Johnston - Ned Overton - Страница 7

Table of Contents

ON the 9th of March, 1807, the ship Dart, belonging to John Macarthur and Messrs. Hulletts, of London, arrived in Port Jackson. In her two stills were imported; one had been sent out to the order of captain Abbott, and the second had been consigned to John Macarthur by his agent, who acted also for Abbott. The second still had been sent out without Macarthur's foreknowledge. Bligh ordered these stills into the public stores to be returned to England. This action produced no opposition, although it had important consequences at a later date.

The first open and active opposition to Bligh was shown by John Macarthur. It arose out of a verdict given by Bligh sitting in the court of appeal. It had been the practice in giving promissory notes to express payment in some form of barter, owing to the lack of specie. Wheat notes were given as follows: the sterling value of the note was divided by the current selling price of a bushel of wheat, and the note made out for the corresponding number of bushels. The value of wheat naturally fluctuated. At the Hawkesbury, it had been fixed at 9s. 3d. per bushel by general order in January, 1806. Owing to the severe losses by floods in March, 1806, the government price offered in the December following was 13s. 9d. In June, 1807, private sales were transacted at 28s. Macarthur held a wheat note given by Andrew Thompson at prices current before the flood. On this note, Macarthur sued in the civil court for the specific performance of the contract on the basis of the bushels of wheat expressed. The court gave the decision that the note was an expression of value and not of quantity of produce. Against this verdict Macarthur appealed in July, 1807, and Bligh dismissed the appeal without hearing the appellant. By this decision, Macarthur was compelled to accept a reduction in the number of bushels expressed in the note pro rata with the increased price of wheat between the dates on which the bill was drawn and on which it was liquidated. Thereafter, Macarthur ceased to visit at government house. The governor showed no resentment of this action, and subsequently called on Macarthur when he was reported to be ill.

John Macarthur

In July, 1807, D'Arcy Wentworth, an assistant surgeon, was tried by a court martial for contempt and disobedience of orders on the complaint of captain Abbott. The court, under the presidency of major Johnston, found him guilty and sentenced him to be publicly reprimanded. On the 23rd of July, Wentworth was ordered to return to his duties, but two days later was suspended from office by orders of the governor. Wentworth immediately made application to Bligh for the reasons of his suspension; and when these were refused he sought permission to visit England, but this request was also refused. Bligh had caused a private inquiry * into the conduct of Wentworth, and he transmitted the charges to England without giving Wentworth the opportunity of making any reply. This action of Bligh was manifestly unjust. The court martial had been instigated by one of the military party, and it is probable that Bligh's inquiries arose out of the trial. However, the military party, after the arrest of Bligh, took up Wentworth's cause, when he was tried and honourably acquitted by court martial.** Wentworth's suspension provoked his bitter hostility to Bligh.

[* See page 188.][** See page 446 et seq.]

In the meantime, Bligh had been making inquiries into the land tenures in the town of Sydney. He submitted a lengthy report on the subject in his despatch, dated 31st October, 1807. Bligh noted irregularities in many of the leases,*** and on the 23rd of July issued a general order directing six named persons to quit and remove their houses from lands adjoining government house on or before the 1st of November following. These persons had received permissive occupancies from Governor King. Amongst other leases adversely commented on in his despatch there was a lease to John Macarthur, near St. Phillip's church. This lease was dated 1st January, 1806, but Bligh asserted **** that it was given after the 12th of July, 1806, which statement is probably correct.***** It is very likely that this and other leases were given by King as a placebo to some of his active opponents. Bligh prevented Macarthur taking possession of the lease, as it encroached on the church lands.

[*** See note 38.][**** See page 424.][***** See note 128.]

In October, 1807, Bligh was again in open conflict with Macarthur. Bligh gave orders that the complete stills, which had been imported in the Dart, should be shipped on the Duke of Portland for their return to England. After their arrival the coppers had been removed to Macarthur's house to unpack the sundries which they contained, and had not been returned to the public store. When he heard of Bligh's orders, Macarthur endeavoured to obtain permission to sell the complete stills to some ship going to India or China, or, if this was objected to, to retain the copper only for domestic use. These requests were ignored. After some petty objections raised by Macarthur, the coppers were removed from the house of Garnham Blaxcell, Macarthur's partner, under the superintendence of Robert Campbell, junior, acting by the orders of the naval officer, but without the consent of Macarthur. Macarthur at once brought an action * against Campbell, junior, for wrongful seizure of his property, and secured a majority verdict in his favour on the ground that Campbell, junior, held no official status. The vindictive words used by Macarthur in his address to the court indicate that it was a malicious prosecution directed at Bligh. The deportation of the stills was justified fully, and the only error was committed by the naval officer when he directed his nephew, R. Campbell, junior, to remove the coppers, instead of personally superintending.

[* See page 174.]

In the more important of his official acts, Bligh had been in the right. But in smaller matters he had acted unwisely, and his conduct had caused offence. By this time, there had developed, especially amongst the military, a feeling of rancour and bitterness. This was due to small causes, to his coarseness of speech, to the directness of his remarks, and to his disregard for the feelings of others. Major Johnston, in October, 1807, wrote to the military secretary of the Duke of York, and asked him to intervene between the governor and the commanding officer of the military. Johnston complained of Bligh's "interfering in the interior management of the Corps by selecting and ordering both officers and men on various duties without my knowledge; his abusing and confining the soldiers without the smallest provocation and without ever consulting me as their commanding officer; and again, his casting the most unreserved and opprobrious censure on the Corps at different times in company at Government House." Johnston was of a pacific nature, but it is clear that he was antagonised by the manners which Bligh had learnt on the quarter-deck.

Prior to the arrival of the schooner Parramatta, at the end of November, Bligh had acquired an unenviable position. John Macarthur and D'Arcy Wentworth were his open enemies; George Johnston, John Harris, William Minchin, and the military generally were in covert antagonism to him; many of the merchants were opposed to him owing to restriction of their trade. On the other hand, the middle and lower orders of settlers were warmly attached to him on account of his actions for their relief after the Hawkesbury floods. In the meantime Bligh's enemies in England had not been idle. The opposition commenced by the friends of the mutineers of the Bounty had been continued. In Bligh's absence, many calumnies had been circulated, just as had happened under the administration of governors Hunter and King. Short had obtained a hearing, and his reports had gained credence to Bligh's prejudice. Bligh was accused of selling provisions at high prices for his own emolument during the scarcity in the colony. An agitation for Bligh's recall was commenced, and Francis Grose, who had become a general, was suggested openly as his successor. As the appointment of Grose would have thrown the colony entirely into the hands of the military, it is highly probable that the agitation was originated by the friends of the military party in New South Wales. The opinion held in the office of the secretary of state is unknown, but the extent of the agitation may be gathered by the fact that the Morning Herald on the 1st of February, 1808, actually announced the recall of Bligh. This was incorrect.