FOOTNOTES:
[227] These views are thus stated by the Archbishop:—"Thus, under a reformed system of secondary punishment, supposing transportation abolished, it strikes me as desirable, with a view to the preservation from a return to evil courses of persons released from penitentiaries, &c., after the expiration of their punishment, that such as may have evinced a disposition to reform, should be at their own desire furnished with means of emigrating to various colonies, British or foreign, in which they may mix, not with such men as their old associates in crime, but with respectable persons unacquainted with their past history; and may thus be enabled, as the phrase is, to turn over a new leaf.' This, of course, implies that they should not emigrate in a body to any one place, and as a distinct class. For juvenile offenders the same course would, perhaps, be even still more suitable."—Letter addressed to the Rev. H. Bishop, on the evidence taken before the Transportation Committee; containing his Grace's opinion on the efficacy of the punishment of transportation.
[228] "I may venture to assure you, the colonists will feel great satisfaction at the declared intention (1833) to continue transportation.... The great advantage they derive from the labor outweighing, in their opinion, the mischief. Regarding, however, the advancement and prosperity of this colony, as now placed on foundations which cannot be shaken, I am strongly impressed with the belief, that the manners and morals of this people would be much improved, and ultimately their wealth and happiness would be much augmented, by a gradual relinquishment of the services of convicts. Yet I am aware that this sentiment is not generally prevalent among the settlers, and I shall therefore abstain from troubling you with any detailed explanations, upon which my opinion is founded."—Despatch of Major-General Bourke, addressed to Mr. Secretary Stanley, 1834.
[229] Hobart Town Gazette.
[230] "Resolved—That in the opinion of this meeting it is unjustifiable to induce intending emigrants to take up their abode in the midst of the vice and immorality which notoriously prevail in the penal colonies; but that such persons should be encouraged to settle in countries, where they will not only be likely to thrive in fortune, but to lead good lives, and bring up their children in virtuous habits."
[231] Times, February 11th, 1840.
[232] House of Lords, 1840.
[233] May 11th, 1839.
[234] For an account of Norfolk Island see vol. i.
[235] The following are the characters and performers in the Castle of Andalusia: Don Cæsar, John Lawrence; Scipio, George Rolfe; Fernando, James Walker; Alphonso, Henry Whitton; Spado, James King; Pedrillo, James Monns; Sanguino, James Cranston; Rafrino, James Porter; Calvetti, William Smith; Vasquez, R. Saunderson.
[236] See Chambers' Miscellany, vol. i.
[237] The idea of employing the prisoners as jurors, will not appear more strange than as witnesses, except that it is unusual:—
"These may appear singular proposals, and I readily admit that the absolute rights of prisoner jurors, and thereby their power of directly controlling the course of justice, might, without impropriety, be for a time somewhat restricted, though, if properly trained up to the privilege, and this latter confined exclusively to men in their last stage, they would very rarely, I am certain, be found wanting in what was required of them. But apart from this, the objects of interesting prisoners, when under a course of moral discipline, in the administration of justice, and of giving them confidence in its equity, are very important ones—perhaps not any in all their management are more so: and both are absolutely wanting now, and may well be so in the circumstances in which they are placed.
"In 1839, the year before my arrival at Norfolk Island, 811 cases were tried; of which only four ended in acquittal—such was the certainty at that time of conviction if accused. In 1840, I acquitted 90 out of 416 tried. (I was then, perhaps, too difficult about evidence, and in my inexperience carried abstract principle too far.) In 1841, I acquitted 25 out of 297 tried; in 1842, 24 out of 326; and in 1843, 16 out of 429. I was much in the habit of employing the officers about the court as a sort of jury, referring to them, though not formally, in cases of difficulty, and inviting them to ask questions. And I very early appointed an intelligent prisoner, in whom I otherwise had confidence, to speak for men accused of local offences, and make the most of their several statements, on condition, however, that he never said for them what he knew to be directly false. He thus served me very much, for what he did not say I sifted with the more care; and the plan altogether, and it is nearly that in the text, answered extremely well. It greatly improved the pleader himself: under the new impulses given to both his head and heart, he became almost a new man: while stupid prisoners, who could not speak for themselves, had as good a chance given them as the cleverest, and the latter, another very important point, had no better."—Maconochie on the Management of Prisoners in the Australian Colonies.
[238] The following extract from Maconochie's pamphlet, may be taken as his plan, matured by experience:—
"The management of penal settlements should be as follows:—1. A fictitious debt of 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 marks should be created against every man, according to his offence, which he should redeem by labour and other good conduct, having a proportion placed to his credit daily as wages, according to his behaviour, and suffering a loss by fine if he offends. 2. No ration should be allowed him of right, except bread and water: for every thing else, following up the analogy thus created between marks and money, he should be charged in them. 3. He should be allowed, however, thus to expend his marks for present indulgencies to what extent he pleases, but never to obtain his discharge, till from his labour and economy combined (both voluntary) he shall fully redeem his debt. 4. On first arriving at a penal settlement, for a period not under three months, but beyond that depending entirely on his own regularity and proficiency, and the acquisition of marks exhibiting them, his treatment should consist of moral, religious, and other intellectual instruction in a penitentiary. 5. After this, he should for a time not under eighteen months, but the period also depending on the acquisition of marks, serve in a mutually responsible party, labouring for government, and disqualified for any situation of trust, authority or indulgence under it, or for any private service. 6. After this, he should hold for not less than fifteen months (making three years in all), and beyond this till he has fully redeemed his marks and earned his entire discharge, a ticket-of-leave in the settlement. 7. In this last stage every reasonable facility should be afforded him to accumulate a little money against his return to society. For this purpose small farms or gardens should be let to men holding this indulgence, at moderate rents in kind:—any stock or edible produce they may raise on these, beyond their rents, should be purchased from them at fair prices into the public stores:—and a fixed proportion of them (3, 4, or 5 per cent, of the entire number of prisoners on the settlement) should further be eligible, as selected by their superintendent, to fill subordinate stations of trust in the general management, and receive (say) 6d. per day as money salary, besides the marks attached to their situations. (In my proposed regulations I suggest also another mode of giving the men a little money to take with them on their return to society—which is, perhaps, a little extravagant, and it would thus admit, at least, of modification; but the point is very important.) 8. On discharge the utmost possible facilities should be afforded the men to disperse;—and their final liberation, as well as every intermediate step towards it, should in every case depend solely on having served the minimum time, and accumulated the corresponding number of marks. No discretion on either head should be vested in any local authority. The whole arrangement should be, as it were, a matter of contract; and the local authorities should have no other control over it, than to see its conditions on both sides punctually fulfilled."—Maconochie's Management, &c.
[239] 1843.
[240] Address to the Legislative Council of New South Wales, August, 1842.
[241] "The whole island, we understand, is in a disorganised state, and thefts of every day occurrence. A few weeks since a boat (the second) was ran away with by nine convicts: one named Barratt, who a few days before he left the island had been charged with making a picklock, for the purpose of robbing the store, of which he was acquitted; and Captain Maconochie actually begged his pardon for allowing him to be locked up."—Sydney Herald, July 26 1841.
[242] Comptroller-general Forster's Report, 1845.
[243] Observations on the State of Norfolk Island: Par. Pap. 1847.
SECTION XXII
Lord Normanby was succeeded by Lord John Russell, 1840. The decrease of transportation to Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's Land, was interpreted as an intention to terminate the system altogether. This was avowed in the usual organs of the government, and the colonists were warned[244] to prepare for the change which awaited them. Thus the total number arriving in Van Diemen's Land in 1839 and 1840, was little more than 2,000: less than one-fifth of the usual number transported.
Two thousand inhabitants of New South Wales made a last effort to recover their share in the benefits of convictism. They forwarded a petition to the British parliament, entreating the continuance of transportation for five years longer. Lord John Russell regarded their request as a strong argument against compliance; and a few weeks after settled the question by cancelling the order in council! The intention of Lord John Russell was to limit transportation to the worst class of offenders, estimated at 500 per annum.
Sir William Molesworth endeavoured to prevent the restoration of the practice, and proposed to supply the demand for labour by anticipating the land fund. The decision of parliament was precipitated by the contrivance of a friend of Captain Maconochie, Mr. Innes, who, in a pamphlet of considerable acumen and literary merit, set forth the value of his scheme. He asserted that the advantage of transportation as a reformatory and deterring system, notwithstanding the numerous experiments, remained yet to be resolved.[245] The House of Commons negatived the motion of Molesworth (September, 1840), and the crowded condition of the hulks excited serious complaints. The House of Commons resolved that the sentence of transportation should be carried into effect, and the prisoners sent out of the country. Lord John Russell then observed that, although he admitted that it was desirable to send a certain number of convicts abroad, where after their liberation they might earn their own livelihood, "he was bound at the same time to consider the state of society, and not expose it to the evils likely to result from a disproportionate number of convicts." (April, 1841.) He announced that not fewer than 2,000 would be sent to Norfolk Island and Tasman's Peninsula.
During these debates, Captain John Montagu, the colonial secretary, was in England. The views of this colony were favorable to transportation under the plan of assignment: many, indeed, were anxious to obtain, through the old channels, the supply of labour so necessary to their prosperity. Montagu succeeded in removing some impressions at Downing-street, unfavorable to the colonial masters, and was welcomed as their successful advocate and general benefactor. At a public dinner, given to celebrate his return, all parties united in expressions of warm respect and gratulation. The roads, he observed, were to be made, public works to be completed, and labour to be abundant. When in England, it was said, "Mr. Montagu steadily pursued one object: transportation—no matter under what modification." The system of assignment had already terminated.
It had been determined that all new prisoners should be worked in gangs, and on their dispersion should receive two classes of tickets; the last giving them greater freedom. It had been recommended by the secretary of state, to compel the prisoners in service, to wear a badge; but this open mark of slavery was exceedingly offensive, and indeed, as a measure of police, exceedingly impolitic—not only calculated to degrade well-conducted men in their own eyes, but to facilitate recognition, and secret signs; and perhaps the confederation of a large class, whose numbers it was so desirable to disguise.
The probation system, initiated by Sir John Franklin in obedience to the orders of Lord John Russell, was intended to combine the principles afterwards extended by Lord Stanley with some of the advantages supposed to result from assignment. The former practice, by which the government transferred the prisoner without delay to the service of a master, left his fate to accident.
Sir John Franklin endeavoured to meet, as far as possible, the views of all parties. To carry out the plans of Lord J. Russell, he proceeded to form gangs of from two to three hundred men, and to locate them wherever it might be practicable to render them useful. The superintendence of the scheme he committed to Captain Forster, who at the same moment held the office of police magistrate, and whose administrative tact was highly esteemed. The effects appeared, at first, encouraging, and the despatches of Sir John Franklin gave promise of success; but in 1842 he found it necessary to recall the favorable opinion: he found that many great and formidable evils were rising into strength, and that the gangs had far from realised his anticipations in the moral improvement of convicts.[246]
It is probable that transportation would have been limited by Lord John Russell, had not a change of ministry thrown the colonies into the hands of Lord Stanley. This nobleman, who succeeded September, 1841, differed greatly from his predecessors. He hinted that the colonies were not entitled to separate consideration—scarcely to notice, in the discussion of this question. That the interest of the mother country was the final and sufficient object to regard; but he did not hold the common views of assignment. He thought that it had been far too hastily condemned. Thus it did not seem improbable that on his return to power the former system, so highly prized by the colonists, would be restored.