Sir George Arthur as Lieutenant-Governor

The fragile order of VDL concerned the British government especially as it planned to increase transportation to the Australian colonies.[1] After Bigge found that transportation was an ineffective deterrent, the British government removed the popular Sorell[2] and in 1824 appointed the strict disciplinarian Colonel George Arthur as lieutenant-governor, beginning the most important period of the penal colony’s history. Seeking to make transportation feared by British criminals, Arthur raised convict discipline to new levels and ensured that punishment was uniform and assured. The British government responded by increasing the annual average of convicts sent to VDL from about 800 between 1817 and 1827 to about 1,800 between 1828 and 1835; between 1830 and 1836 convicts formed on average 44 per cent of the population.[3] The increase in convicts and free settlers swelled the total population from 5,468 in 1820 to 24,279 by 1830. Using methods similar to Sorell’s, Arthur deployed the increasing number of convicts on a large programme of public works and assigned convicts to farmers throughout the island. By forcing convicts to work for long periods, Arthur hoped to break the habit of idleness associated with criminality and provide convicts with skills to earn a living on the end of their sentences. The combination of cheap labour, a sizable injection of British capital and a growing free settler population greatly stimulated the economy and further strengthened the power and wealth of the gentry and merchants.

Arthur imposed severe punishments and floggings on convicts who disobeyed his regulations and many were hung for committing serious crimes, but order was also encouraged by his offer of inducements, such as a ticket of leave and a pardon, to those who behaved correctly and showed signs of reformation.[4] A ticket of leave was a license given to convicts if well behaved for four, six, or eight years depending on the length of their sentence. It allowed them to earn wages and live independently while serving the remainder of their sentences. The convicts remained under surveillance and the ticket could be rescinded for bad behaviour. A pardon remitted part or a convict’s entire sentence. A conditional pardon required a convict to remain in the colony, while an absolute pardon made no such requirement. Appealing to the self-interest of convicts was a central principle of Arthur’s policy of transportation

Colonists praised Arthur for restoring order by suppressing bush-ranging and the Aborigines and by enforcing a rigid system of convict discipline. But the relationship between some colonists and Arthur was strained. Arthur wanted to dominate colonists, not bow to their demands, to centralise power, not disperse it, and to restrict liberty, not extend it. The institutions of government reflected his desires. In 1825, VDL secured administrative independence from NSW and was granted an Executive Council, a form of cabinet comprised of senior public servants and a Legislative Council, whose members included the executive councillors and some free settlers chosen by Arthur. Arthur, who initiated all legislation, expected the two Councils to approve his measures and they invariably did. Arthur also expected the Supreme Court, formed in 1824 with the arrival of John Pedder as chief justice, to uphold his autocratic rule, even where his powers might ‘trench upon the privileges or conveniences of the free.’[5] By holding a seat on the Executive Council until 1836 and on the Legislative Council, Pedder subordinated the judicial arm of government to the executive and destroyed confidence in his impartiality.[6]

Arthur used his power to initiate new legislation ‘sparingly’ when it became the only way of ‘varying the community instincts and activities’ that frustrated his policies.[7] In ten years under Arthur (1826 to 1836), eighty-eight statutes were passed compared with one hundred and thirty-six in six years under his successor Sir John Franklin.[8] Arthur’s statute law vested ‘executive powers in himself and those responsible to him; providing administrative directions to enable his policies to be implemented without too much statutory regulation.’ He argued against the notion that no colonial laws should be implemented unless they were ‘adapted to the spirit of the British Constitution.’[9] Those who ‘knowingly’ emigrated to a convict colony, which was in effect ‘an immense Gaol or Penitentiary,’ should not expect ‘to retain every immunity and privilege’ they enjoyed in England and should ‘abide cheerfully by the rules and customs of the Prison.’ There could be

...no happiness nor prosperity without personal security,’ and this could only be secured by ‘severe discipline’.[10]

---

[1] Boyce, James, Van Diemen’s Land, (Black Inc.), 2008, pp. 145-212 provides the most recent discussion of Arthur’s rule.

[2] Sorell’s removal had more to do with his relationship with Mrs Kent, whom he lived with in Government House than his governance of VDL. He was negligent in his family obligations and his failure to recognise the social conventions was a deliberate choice. For this he was apparently prepared to pay. He damaged the official career to which he was certainly dedicated, but the majority of the influential free Tasmanian colonists seemed to have overlooked unconventional conduct or impropriety and saw Sorell as a fair and effective governor.

[3] Ibid, Shaw A.G.L., Convicts and Colonies, pp. 365-67; ibid, Forsyth, W.D., Governor Arthur’s Convict System, p. 150; ibid, Hartwell, R.M., The Economic Development of Van Diemen’s Land, 1820-1850, p. 68.

[4] Arthur, George, Defence of Transportation, in Reply to the Remarks of the Archbishop of Dublin in His Second Letter to Earl Grey, (Gowie), 1835, pp. 48, 96-100; ibid, Shaw A.G.L., Convicts and Colonies, pp. 217-48; Davis, R.P., The Tasmanian Gallows: A Study of Capital Punishment, (Cat and Fiddle Press), 1974, pp. 13-33.

[5] Colonial Office (CO) 280, Arthur to Hanley, 4 April 1834.

[6] For a sympathetic view of Pedder, see Bennett, J.M., Sir John Pedder: First Chief Justice, (University of Tasmania), 1977. See also, Howell, P.A., ‘Pedder, Sir John Lewes (1793-1859)’, ADB, Vol. 2, pp. 319-320.

[7] Ibid, Castles, A.C., ‘The Vandiemonian Spirit and the Law’, pp. 114, 116 n. 53

[8] The Public General Acts of Tasmania 1826-1936, Vol. 7, (Butterworth), 1936-1939, pp. 221-228.

[9] CO 280, Arthur to Hanley, 4 April 1834.

[10] CO 280, Arthur to Hanley, 4 April 1834, emphasis in original.

You wouldn’t know it was only a year away!

If you look at the ‘national’ newspapers you really would not know that the referendum on Scottish independence is only a year away and yet it is perhaps the most important decision that will be made in our lifetimes.  Certainly it is more important than the proposed referendum on the European Union about which everyone has an opinion.  I’m reminded of how ‘British’ history is taught in many schools—for ‘Britain’ read England or, more accurately, England south of the Watford Gap.  It is hardly surprising, given the enormous condescension of history, that Scotland is calling for independence.  The assumption appears to be that the Scots will see sense and vote to remain in the Union but that’s a hell of a gamble.  The polls suggest that most people are against independence so we just need to build on that…again remarkable complaisance.  Think again…a recent poll in the Herald shows that a majority of Scots favour ‘devomax’, the further devolution of powers short of independence that is not on offer…so the choice is between independence or nothing for this majority and ripe for picking by those who want independence.

Do I think Scotland could make it as an independent country…well actually yes.  It has the resources—natural, social, cultural, economic and political—to do so.  Devolution has given it a revived experience of governance and it is rightly believed that successive Scottish executives have done a good job.  It already has its own legal and education systems.  So there are strong arguments for an independent Scotland at a practical level.  There is also a persuasive historical case for restoring the independence of the northern kingdom, a process that devolution inevitably set in train.  There is a strong tradition in Britain’s history for local and regional identities that frequently transcend any notion of national feeling.  I come from the Fens and have always regarded myself first as a Fenman and still baulk at being seen as an East Anglian. Individual identity does depend on place and space.  In Scotland, the distinction between lowlanders and highlanders or whether you were born in Glasgow or Edinburgh makes a difference and has long been a feature of Scottish cultural identity.  What holds Britain together is its union of disparate and different people.

The problem with union is that it was the result of a long evolution and, other than being unitary, has little logical structure at all.  It was the consequence of conquest, cajoling, bribery and corruption…a constitutional structure based on decidedly unconstitutional foundations.  Until recently, the relationship between the centre and the peripheries was decided in Westminster and the degree to which the peripheries achieved political influence was dependent on their ability to influence politicians in Westminster.  It had been a very unequal union in which being English or being seen to be English has been its determining characteristic.  I happen to think that the four elements of Great Britain are better together than apart…but then I’m English and would say that anyway wouldn’t I!!  But not under the current union….what we need is a new federal union to replace the bankrupt unitary one. 

This would not be as difficult or radical as it sounds.  Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales already have devolved powers that could be extended by applying the principles of devomax.  In effect they would have independence to make most of the decisions about domestic policy simply developing what already exists.  England would need its own parliament to make decisions…again this is not a difficult proposition as currently Parliament makes decisions about education and the NHS, for instance, that apply to England rather than the United Kingdom as a whole.  There would need to be a peripatetic federal Parliament to decide issues that affect the union as a whole—foreign policy, defence, security on so on—that could sit in London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff in existing parliamentary or assembly buildings for say six months at a time.  This would modernise what is increasingly a creaking constitutional structure that is not ‘fit for purpose’ as far as many people are concerned.