A Source Book of Australian History

by Unknown

The settlement of Western Australia was undertaken in 1825, with the purely philanthropic idea of relieving the overcrowded population of Great Britain. The early difficulties were due to the ignorance of conditions in the country, and the unsuitability of the emigrants. Mr. Peel was chief promoter of the scheme.

The reader's attention will now be drawn to some of the mis-statements with respect to the colony, which have appeared in recent publications. Under this head he would especially notice a work entitled "England and America." At page 33, Vol. 2 of the work in question, there is said to be, in Western Australia "abundance of good land and of land, too, cleared and drained by nature." After adverting to the amount of capital and live stock, and the number of labourers introduced by the first settlers, it is asked, what has become of all that capital, and all those labourers? Then comes the following passage: "Why this failure with all the elements of success—plenty of good land, plenty of capital, and enough labour? The explanation is easy: In this colony there never has been a class of labourers. Those who went out as labourers no sooner reached the colony than they were tempted by the superabundance of good land to become landowners."

The writer proceeds to state, that Mr. Peel (who, as he had been informed, had brought out a capital of £50,000 and 300 persons of the labouring class) had been thus left without a servant to make his bed, or to fetch him water from the river; and that, in the absence of his people, his capital had perished. "The same thing," he adds, "happened in many cases." Further on, it is stated that some of the labourers, who had become independent landowners, died of hunger, at a period when a large supply of food had reached the colony, and that they were starved because where they had settled was not known to the Governor, nor even to themselves—"such," says this writer, "was the dispersion of these colonists, in consequence of superabundance of good land." It is added, that the settlers who remained had petitioned for convicts, though one of the chief inducements to settling in the colony was an undertaking, on the part of the English Government, that none should be sent thither.

If this writer's statement be correct, that labourers on their arrival, tempted by the superabundance of good land, did with impunity desert their masters, leaving their property to perish, and did themselves become landowners, it will be apparent, either that there were then no laws in the colony, or that they were not in force. The reverse, however, is the fact—there were laws, and they were enforced.

The following is No. 8 of the land regulations: "No grant of land will be made to servants under indenture; nor shall persons receive grants who shall appear to have come to the settlement at the expense of other individuals without sufficient assurance of their having fulfilled the condition of any agreement under which they may have come." The author does not remember an instance of this regulation being relaxed; and it is manifest that destruction of property and the ruin of the capitalist must have been inevitable, had the Government not enforced it.

Equally without foundation is the statement that the indentured servant could desert his master with impunity. The indenture was binding equally on master and servant, and was strictly enforced by the colonial law. If the master failed to give the wages, food, or whatever else might have been stipulated for in the indenture, the servant, on establishing his complaint before a magistrate, obtained his discharge. On the other hand, if the master proved a breach of the indenture by the servant unduly absenting himself, refusing to work, etc., the magistrate was under obligation to imprison the servant. Also any person employing an indentured servant, without permission of the master, was subject to a very heavy fine.

Mr. Peel and his people were in this manner circumstanced. The author has read many of their indentures; in all of these Mr. Peel was bound to pay them daily wages (generally three shillings) out of which their food and clothing were to be deducted. The capital imported by Mr. Peel, though very considerable, was understood to consist chiefly of stores and live-stock. However this may have been, he found it convenient after a time, to grant most of his people permission to work for other settlers, reserving a right to recall them when he chose; but allowing them the alternative of their discharge, on their reimbursing him the expense of their passage out. As his people could get higher wages when working for others, they gladly accepted the permission. Occasional misunderstandings took place between him and some of them, and it was not till after the Governor, accompanied by the Law-Adviser of Government, had more than once repaired in person to Mr. Peel's location, that an adjustment of those differences was effected. The author has known several servants of Mr. Peel to be imprisoned for breaches of indenture. A number of them, however, were excellent men, who would have conscientiously adhered to him, had he not given them the option of working for others.

It is but justice here to acknowledge the great benefit conferred on the settlement by Mr. Peel, in the introduction of men who were not only of good conduct, but well acquainted with farming pursuits or with trades. For himself, the author feels happy in having this opportunity to express his sense of it, having had upwards of four years in his service, a family brought out by Mr. Peel. The father of this family is a man of intelligence and observation. Besides his own trade of brick and tile-making, he has a complete knowledge of farming, gardening, bricklaying, lime-burning, and brewing, in which various occupations he employs himself. Such is his industry that he has been seen working for hours in the garden by moonlight, after spending a long day at labour in the field. His wife is a regular dairywoman. One of the sons is a carpenter, and another a ploughman, besides having each a knowledge of their father's trade; and the rest of the family, down to the youngest, are training up habits of industry and labour.

Although, as has been shown, the conditions of the indentures were by the colonial laws enforced, it will nevertheless be manifest, that no law, in any country, can prevent an artful and unprincipled servant (anxious to be rid of his engagement) from acting in so vexatious a manner, that some masters, in preference to keeping such a one, would forgo any benefit the indenture might offer. Such a course has been adopted in the colony by some masters thus circumstanced. Those, however, who had been careful to bring out men of good character, and to whom they allowed an equitable compensation for their services, have rarely had cause for complaint; and, on the contrary, have generally been rewarded by the cheerful obedience of their servants.

The author is the more desirous of disproving the alleged lawless state of society in the colony, as the implied reproach is totally unmerited by the Governor, Sir James Stirling, who has been most indefatigable and self-denying in his exertions for the public welfare; and it is equally so by the magistracy, who have, from the outset, administered the laws with vigour and impartiality.