The History of Tasmania Volume I Part 28

They a.s.serted their conviction that the removal of Judge Montagu was occasioned by his decision on the Dog Act, and the desire to replace him by a more pliant judge. These various remonstrances had no effect on the ministers, and the entire course of the governor was approved, except the attempted coercion of the chief justice. The position of the government was one of considerable embarra.s.sment. It was the unquestionable right of those affected to oppose the execution of illegal ordinances; but no blame would have rested with the governor had he amended them without removing the land-marks of the colonial const.i.tution.

A minute acquaintance with colonial history would justify the belief that appeal to Downing-street against the conduct of governors is utterly futile. When the dispute is between persons high in office the established policy does not predicate the result; but when a mere colonist complains he will find no precedent in Australian experience to cheer him in his task. Gross instances of oppression have not infrequently occurred; but in the Australian journals of half a century no example is recorded of a governor's recall on such grounds, or of such a censure on his conduct as might influence the habits of colonial rulers. An opposite course would be inconvenient--perhaps dangerous. As a choice of evils, it is better that the colonists should despair of redress than to encourage the discontented to harra.s.s the representative of the crown. A result so invariable, however, proves that a colonial-office cannot protect the Australian people. This futility of appeal is more striking when the local authorities are protected by a laborious despatch writer. The subtle arrangement of facts and inferences suggests without appearing to dictate the judgment of the office. These papers first fall into the hands of subordinate officials, who feel a natural antipathy to colonists, whose established character is turbulent, rapacious, and democratic. In the multiplicity of business, comprehending the affairs of forty colonies, the responsible minister can know little of details, and that little he must rapidly forget. Thus, when a question is proposed, he asks time to refresh his memory. A pungent pa.s.sage or epithet, wholly irrelevant to the real merits of the dispute, is drawn from these doc.u.ments. It was thus when the quarrel between the executive and judges was debated in the house.

The minister, having read in a despatch that the decision of the judge would disorganise the body of law, represented the colony as a scene of turbulence, when not a single step had been taken but the courts of Westminster would have approved. But the house was equally ill informed.

It readily acquiesced: the conversation dropped, and the despatch triumphed. No governors have stood so high in the colonial-office as despatch writers; whether that ability in epistolary correspondence implies general superiority, or that they beguile the minister of his judgment by the subtlety or wisdom of their political disquisitions.

The pet.i.tions for representative government, repeated for more than twenty years, and which strongly interested the sympathy of all cla.s.ses, were renewed with increasing hope of success from 1846 to 1850. The ministers, though admitting the abstract value of the privilege, hesitated while the great preponderance of convicts seemed to require an absolute authority. This feeling was not overcome until the accession of Lord Grey, who saw no danger in conceding to the free population the common rights of Englishmen. A variety of plans were submitted at different times to the parliament and ministry, to secure colonial representation. Mr. Joseph Hume suggested (1832) the admission of a certain number of representatives chosen in the colonies to seats in the House of Commons; in all nineteen, one being for Australia,--a measure once suggested for the old American colonies; but the distance in both cases, and expenses of transit, would not easily have admitted effective representation or perfect responsibility. Sir John Franklin suggested (1839) a legislature, to consist of twenty-one members, one third nominated by the crown, and the remainder elected by persons holding the qualification of common jurors. He gave a generous testimony to the intelligence and probity of the settlers, and alleged that they would bear comparison with corresponding cla.s.ses within any dominions of the crown.[250]

In 1843 the legislature of New South Wales was const.i.tuted. Originally a nominee council, the popular element was infused by two thirds being elective members. A civil list was reserved, and the disposal of territorial revenues withheld; but the partial liberty enjoyed was used with discretion and effect. The bill enjoined the establishment of district councils, authorised to superintend internal affairs, and to fulfil many of the functions of munic.i.p.al bodies. They were, however, never called into action. The scattered inhabitants found it difficult to a.s.semble, and more so to reconcile their neighbors to local taxation.

The machinery of the councils was set in motion only to defeat their design. Thus the legislative body retained in its hands the whole power which it had been intended to balance and check by the petty councils.

Port Phillip, however, then a part of New South Wales, but more distant from the metropolis than England from Rome, was represented in a council sitting at Sydney. The loss of time required disinclined most gentlemen to undertake the representation, and those chosen were chiefly resident in New South Wales proper. Their numbers were too small for effectual action, and their sympathies were divided between their const.i.tuents and their neighbors. The revenues raised at Victoria were expended to some extent in the elder city, and the superintendent of Port Phillip had little influence and less power in the government. The popular dissatisfaction, which led to some unavailing pet.i.tions to the crown, took a curious form. Thus, in 1848, the electors met at the hustings and discountenanced the appearance of a candidate, and after waiting an hour, the returning officer announced that no member had been returned.

On meeting for the election of a member for the city Earl Grey was chosen. The governor and superintendent considered this proceeding a disgraceful farce. The law officers could not question its legality, and the secretary of state was for two years member for Melbourne, without, however, taking his seat. Mr. Westgarth, a merchant of tried intelligence and public spirit, was chosen afterwards, and was presented to the house "in the room of the Right Hon. Henry Grey, Earl Grey."

Sir Wm. Denison was instructed to report on the subject of an elective legislature for Van Diemen's Land. He furnished Lord Grey with various opinions and suggestions. He had recommended a frame-work, the counterpart of the New South Wales a.s.sembly, only, however, that he deemed it undesirable for colonies so contiguous to differ in their inst.i.tutions. The experience of the Tasmanian legislative council had, he a.s.serted, a.s.sisted him in forming an opinion on the character of the people. "When we see," said Sir William, "the low estimate which is placed upon every thing which can distinguish a man from his fellows, with the sole exception of wealth; when we see that even wealth does not lead to distinction, or open the road to any other ambition save that of excelling in habits of self-indulgence,--it can be hardly a subject of surprise that so few rise above the general level, or that those few owe more to the possession of a certain oratorical facility than to their powers of mind or the justness of the opinions they advocate."

"There is an essentially democratic spirit, which actuates a large ma.s.s of the community; and it is with a view to check the development of this spirit that I would suggest the formation of an upper chamber." Sir William Denison suggested that bishops might be members of an upper house, and certain _ex officio_ representatives of government; the rest, whether nominated by the crown or elected by the people, to hold their seats for life.[251]

By a despatch to Sir Charles Fitz Roy, Earl Grey expounded a new const.i.tutional system for the colonies. It was zealously opposed in New South Wales. The people complained that the change in the const.i.tution without their consent was an infringement of their vested rights, and disrespectful to their legislature. They objected strongly to a plan which made the district councils the electors of the a.s.sembly. They repudiated the statement that their legislature had absorbed all the powers of "the colonial state," and the checks and balance contemplated by the original const.i.tutional act. These views were sustained by the legislature itself. The idea of two chambers was approved by the majority, but most elected members were against it.

The plans of Earl Grey and the correspondence and pet.i.tions they produced were referred to the committee of the Privy Council, and the report adopted recognised all the great principles of British government except the full control of the expenditure (1849). This able paper recommended legislative councils for all colonies capable of supporting a civil list, one third nominees, and the remainder chosen by the people. The division of the legislature into separate chambers it resigned to the judgment of the colonies. It suggested a federal a.s.sembly for the general interest of the Australias, having its action closely defined. The "House of Delegates," to consist of not less than twenty nor more than thirty, were distributed--to each colony two, and one additional for every fifteen-thousand souls. This plan of government was differently regarded in different colonies. The elder condemned its restrictions: the younger rejoiced in the prospect of new franchises, and trusted to time to enlarge their liberties. The general opinion of intelligent men was favorable to the division of the legislature, but the colonies were not capable of supplying the elements of n.o.bility.

Some aspiring persons desired a little house of peers, others the appointment of senators by the crown, and for life: a greater number were convinced that the legislature should be elective throughout. The social equality of settlers who landed together could not be forgotten in the diversities of their colonial fortune. The first collision of opinion would bring the machinery of double chambers to a dead lock, and no interposing power could adjust the dislocated frame-work. A stoppage of supplies would follow the first impulses of resentment. In English representation it is the last remedy, but then it betokens the dismissal of a minister or the downfall of a dynasty.

The colonial press generally approved the ministerial bill, not as a measure approaching perfection, but for some favorite object it was calculated to hasten. It was hailed at Port Phillip because it secured separation from Sydney; at South Australia, as certain to terminate the ecclesiastical endowments; and in Van Diemen's Land it was welcomed, with all its faults, as the engine sure to destroy transportation. Thus the Colonial Reform Society, which attempted to defeat the government measure, found little sympathy beyond New South Wales, where the change gave nothing. The ministers interpreted the satisfaction of the colonies as a testimony to their skill, not detestation of their government. The real cause of colonial delight was the severance of their chains, and the certainty that when broken all the power of Europe could never renew them.

The bill suffered some mutilations in its pa.s.sage to the throne. The federal clauses were expunged. The local governors were opposed to the establishment of an a.s.sembly of delegates, which would have overruled their individual policy. They were fearful of compromising their revenues by permitting to New South Wales the preponderance of members.

These objections, not indeed without weight, and, still more, the jealousy of the conservatives of an organisation which seemed but a prelude to independence, despoiled the measure of a provision which, however modified, must be ultimately restored. A reduction of the franchise of the bill from 20 to 10, nearly equal to household suffrage, was, however, the most considerable change. It was suggested by Mr. R. Lowe, to bear down an opulent emancipist interest in New South Wales. It was expected to give irresistible power to that cla.s.s in Van Diemen's Land. The bill was carried through the lords by a trifling majority in a thin house. The fate of a young empire but slightly moved the British peerage. It received the royal a.s.sent, August 5th, 1850.

When the bill arrived the joy of Port Phillip was unbounded. Several days were devoted to processions and feasting. Numberless devices were exhibited, displaying the political bias of the people. Many thousand pounds were spent in the festivities. A similar though less magnificent display was made in Van Diemen's Land. All ranks were inclined to forget their differences, and public dinners, at which many hundreds were guests, celebrated the const.i.tutional victory.

Lord John Russell, on the second reading of the bill, explained his opinions, which, whether or not consistent with the ministerial measure, were worthy his station and political renown. "I antic.i.p.ate with others," he said, "that some of our colonies may so grow in wealth and population that they may feel themselves strong enough to maintain their own independence in amity and alliance with Great Britain. I do not think that that time is yet approaching. But let us make them, as fast as possible, fit to govern themselves. Let us give them, as far as we can, the capacity of ruling their own affairs. Let them increase in wealth and population; and, whatever may happen, we of this great empire will have the consolation of saying that we have increased the happiness of the world." Such sentiments tend to extinguish the desire to quit a political connection rendered honorable by terms so n.o.bly expressed by the first minister of the crown, and which, if fairly carried out, will make the colonies cling with fondness to a nation so magnanimous as to greet them with applause.

In 1846-7 important additions were made to the educational means of the colony. An episcopal inst.i.tution, called Christ's College, was formed at Bishopsbourne. Scholars.h.i.+ps were founded by the medical, military, and clerical professions, and divinity fellows.h.i.+ps endowed (1846). Lord Stanley recommended the establishment of a proprietary high school, open on equal terms to all denominations, and promised the patronage of the crown. The site reserved for this purpose at Hobart Town was granted by Sir W. Denison to the episcopalians, for the Hutchins' school. This alienation was deemed unjust. Instead, however, of wasting time in unavailing complaints, the friends of education were convened by Mr. H.

Hopkins, an opulent merchant, when a prospectus was submitted by the Rev. Dr. Lillie and J. West. A thousand pounds were subscribed in the room, and in five weeks 5000 (1847). The first conspicuous object seen by the stranger on entering the river is the High School of Hobarton,--an edifice erected amidst enchanting scenery, on a site granted by the crown, and possessing architectural attractions which have yet to be equalled in this hemisphere. The inst.i.tution is managed by a council of nine, chosen by the shareholders. The Rector, nominated by the London University, was the Rev. J. B. Froude, author of the "Nemesis of Faith,"--a publication which led to his instant resignation.

James Eccleston, Esq., appointed in his stead, survived the opening of the school only one month. A thousand pounds were subscribed for his widow.

Thus the activity of private zeal effected the objects contemplated by legislative interference. The growth of population will give ample scope for these various inst.i.tutions, and extinguish all but a wholesome rivalry.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 248: The council derived their powers from the Act 9 of George IV., c. 83. They were permitted to enact ordinances "for the good government of the colony," but they were forbidden to impose taxes, except for local purposes; and they were ordered to state "distinctly and particularly in the body" of every law the purposes to which the tax should be applied; and thus to prevent the evasion of the prohibitory clause intended to protect the subject. It was not worth while to enquire whether the view of the judges of the legality of the act in the case of Symons _v._ Morgan was in harmony with the parliamentary act, because the question merged in one of much greater importance--Whether they could take that act into consideration at all? It was of far more consequence to know whether the colony had a remedy against the usurpation of the legislative council, than to decide whether Messrs.

Horne and Fleming were better lawyers than Sir John Pedder and Mr.

Justice Montagu. "The powers of a subordinate legislature," says a distinguished writer, "are expressly or tacitly delegated by the supreme government. In order, therefore, to determine whether an act of the legislature has a binding force, it is necessary to look at the extent of the delegation. If the act be not within the scope of the delegation, it is without binding force, and can be annulled before a competent tribunal" (Lewis on Dependencies). Sir Wm. Denison stated that the silence of the Judges for fourteen days after the act was pa.s.sed,--whatever might have been the cause of that silence--ignorance, indolence, sickness, or corruption,--rendered the most unlawful stretch of power on the part of the council, including the total subversion of all the limitary clauses, binding upon the colony, and if sanctioned by the Queen, through the same ministerial inadvertence or corruption, binding for ever. Judging of the intentions of parliament by the general character of colonial legislation and by the cautious wording of this act, it could scarcely be imagined that they suspended the public safety on such a thread. That Englishmen should be deprived of their rights, without the possibility of appeal, by the inadvertence of a judge--not sitting in a court of justice, but in his own chamber--would be to legislate by accident. Sir Wm. Denison relied on the despatch of Sir George Murray (1828), which accompanied the Act 9 Geo. IV., known as the "Huskisson Act." The former practice was to require the governor to submit to the judge the draft of a bill before it was laid upon the table of the council chamber, no principle of colonial law being more "firmly established than that a colonial legislature cannot enact statutes repugnant to the law of England." The judge (he said) "might have found himself often required in open court to deny the validity of a colonial ordinance, on the ground of repugnancy." By the Act in question "provision was made for fully learning the views of the judges upon the law, and for preventing their refusing to execute any law that may be pa.s.sed after a full consideration of their objections." Thus it was intended to "combine, as far as possible, the advantage of a strict observance of a general rule, and a harmony between the judges and the legislature." It was therefore clear that the power given to the judges to stop the enforcement of any illegal ordinance continued until their objections--whenever and wherever they might arise--had been "fully considered."--_Hobart Town Courier._]

[Footnote 249: Parl. papers, July. 1848.]

[Footnote 250: Despatch, August, 1838.]

[Footnote 251: Despatch to Earl Grey, 1848.]

SECTION II.

It now remains to record the most important colonial agitation of modern times. The opposition of Van Diemen's Land to a system reprobated by mankind--too long despised--awakened everywhere resistance to transportation; and, a.s.sisted by the discovery of gold fields of vast extent and opulence, will change the penal policy of the British empire.

In the progress of the struggle all cla.s.ses ranged on the same side.

Parents thought of their children--patriots of their country. Every legislature of this hemisphere has expressed the popular will and demanded abolition, and the final triumph only awaits the fiat of the crown. The steps of the colonists have been cautious and deliberate, their perseverence and energy indomitable! Their success has been chequered by frequent disappointment, but never was a battle more n.o.bly fought--never was there a cause more worthy of triumph.

Mr. McLachlan, long a resident in Van Diemen's Land, judged the plans of Lord Stanley by the test of experience, and warned the minister of their too certain results. Other colonists in England corroborated his views and enforced his representation. Mr. Smith, a colonist of long standing, obtained an audience at Downing-street. He described the social dangers which environed the settlers. "I confess," said the n.o.ble lord, "that you are in an awful position."

The representation forwarded by Mr. Pitcairn and his coadjutors was intrusted to Mr. M'Lachlan's care. The press of England took the side of the oppressed, and the inexorable office was obliged to listen, to argue, and retract.

There was, however, one result of his scheme which moved the susceptibilities of Lord Stanley himself. He shrank from the "intolerable evils of a breach of faith" with the exiles of Great Britain. They had been encouraged to expect high wages and ready employment. Such was the fair reward offered. Far other was their actual lot. "Thousands of prisoners," said an official representation, "are going about idle, polluting the atmosphere in which they move. Is it to be wondered at that the Pentonville men should fall?"[252] The extreme social degradation and demoralising contamination to which they were exposed in Van Diemen's Land, and the disheartening difficulties they had to contend with, were utterly incompatible with the spirit of Lord Stanley's despatch.[253] This "breach of the public faith" was promptly repaired by a new series of projects.

Sir Charles Fitz Roy and Sir E. Wilmot, a.s.sisted by Mr. Latrobe, were instructed to select a site whither to send exiles, there to remain while awaiting hire or voluntary emigration: conditional pardons which gave liberty in Van Diemen's Land, were made available in all the colonies.

The formation of a new settlement was the grand expedient. Vessels bringing convicts to Van Diemen's Land were to convey ticket holders to North Australia. Happily for the world this project was defeated. A squatter hired exiles in England, with the sanction of the minister. A demand for labor sprung up. Sir George Gipps informed the secretary of state that from Moreton Bay to Melbourne exiles would be welcome. This Mr. Latrobe confirmed (1845). The settlers a.s.sociated to bring expirees from Van Diemen's Land. Many s.h.i.+ploads were deported at 1 per head.

Thus the difficulty appeared at an end. The _Maitland_, engaged for North Australia, was diverted to Port Phillip. The men were promptly employed. The considerable flockmasters were desirous of a regular supply, while the colonists in general were far less cordial. Opposition was, however, languid; and the occasional apathy of the public and the indecision of the press were construed as a.s.sent.

While the home and colonial governments were constructing and dissolving systems, the idea of abolition was started by the press. "The settlers,"

said the _Examiner_, "may not be prepared for this. Our own impression is that they are not; but it is our firm opinion that at no distant day the unanimous voice of the community will say, in a tone not to be disregarded, cease transportation for ever." (March, 1844.) Events a few months after still more forcibly pointed to this issue.

Mr. M'Lachlan, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, put the case of Van Diemen's Land in a striking aspect. "Shall the fairest isle in the south be converted into one huge gaol? shall the free inhabitants be made the pa.s.sive instruments of punis.h.i.+ng these criminals? Is this the only capacity in which the British government will recognise the free colonists? The pet.i.tioners have laid their case before the legislature.

They trust they have not appealed in vain--that they will not be driven from a land where the best days of many of them have been spent"

(February, 1846).

The pet.i.tion prepared by Mr. Pitcairn was presented in the lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne (March, 1846). In remarking on its contents, Lord Stanley begged their lords.h.i.+ps to believe that the question involved interests more important than a single colony! He stated that Van Diemen's Land could not be swamped by an annual influx of four thousand.

If, he said, the thirty thousand persons released from the prisons of France were so intolerable, what must be the condition of England with sixty thousand expirees then settled in the colonies? Van Diemen's Land was always a penal colony, and he saw no reason that it should be otherwise. Earl Grey warmly censured this policy, and complained "that no hope of relief from the frightful evils of transportation had been afforded." He stated that he was "prepared to express an opinion that transportation should be got rid of. He had long entertained that opinion, and had never seen the arguments of the Archbishop of Dublin refuted." A duplicate of this pet.i.tion, presented to the Commons, was followed by the motion of Mr. Ewart, "That it is inexpedient to make Van Diemen's Land the sole receptacle of convicts, and that transportation be abolished, except as a supplement to penal discipline" (May, 1846).

The day chosen was inauspicious. The "house" was gone to the Epsom races. Mr. Hudson, the railway king, not better employed, stumbled into the chapel of St. Stephen, and counted out the members. Mr. Ewart renewed his motion (July 6). A few days before Earl Grey and Mr. Hawes had obtained the command of the colonies, they admitted the facts of the pet.i.tion, and promised redress. The liberal principles avowed by the new government rea.s.sured the friends of Van Diemen's Land. Mr. Gladstone had determined to arrest the influx of convicts for two years: this was approved by his successor. In quas.h.i.+ng the North Australian colony, Earl Grey stated his dissent from the principles on which it had been founded (September 30, 1846). The whigs ever expressed a decided abhorrence of penal colonisation and the collection of ma.s.ses cradled in the traditions of crime. When taunted with this acc.u.mulation in Van Diemen's Land as the result of his policy of 1840, Lord John Russell explained:--"As to the sending of convicts to Van Diemen's Land, he had intended to adopt the policy recommended in the work of the Archbishop of Dublin. Had his plan been carried out, instead of 4,000 convicts sent to Van Diemen's Land there would not have been more than five or six hundred."

When Earl Grey instructed Sir William Denison in reference to certain reforms, he intimated his expectation that transportation would terminate. Soon after Sir William Denison addressed to the magistrates of the territory a series of enquiries (March, 1847), of which the first was awfully momentous. "Do you consider it desirable that transportation of convicts to this country should cease altogether?" The character of the enquiry was described in a letter signed by the private secretary.

The governor preferred communicating with these gentlemen, and by them with their neighbours, rather than with popular a.s.semblies. It was not, however, to be expected that a subject of direct and universal concern would be resigned to the discussion of a single cla.s.s; nor did persons holding magisterial distinctions, on that account command the confidence of the people. This was felt by the magistrates themselves. A preliminary meeting was convened at Hobart Town to discuss the subject of the circular. A difference of opinion was apparent, and an angry altercation ensued. Mr. Carter, a storekeeper, defended transportation as necessary to trade. Mr. Gregson advised his auditors to cast the question of crocks and slops to the wind, and to secure at once the final liberation of the colony. A public meeting was held at Hobart Town. Ineffectual attempts to postpone the question by the advocates of transportation were offered, and the speakers on the popular side were loudly cheered. The party defeated signed a memorial representing that they were not heard at the meeting, and repudiating its decision. Sir William Denison promised to place it in the hands of Earl Grey "as a record to be employed in the support of the facts it contained."

This second pet.i.tion, adopted by the colony (6th May, 1847), was also drawn up by Mr. Pitcairn. The editors of the London _Morning Chronicle_ remarked "That they never read a public doc.u.ment more calculated to command both the convictions and sympathies of those whom it addresses.

Future ages would contemplate with amazement the fact that wrongs so cruel in their nature, and so enormous in their amount, have been inflicted in civilized times." It recapitulated the grievances of the colony with energy and clearness. It complained that promises of relief had proved fallacious--that the worst evils of transportation were continued; that there were then four thousand prisoners more in the colony than were ever at one time in New South Wales, and that 12,000 free persons had quitted the country since 1841. The pet.i.tion asked for representative government, the abolition of transportation, and the importation of 12,000 free immigrants at the expense of Great Britain; and it recommended the removal of the men to the colony of North Australia, or wherever they might be required. Meetings were held by different cla.s.ses in several districts of the colony. In the most populous the feeling decidedly favored abolition. Not the least important of the series were held in Launceston. Six magistrates of the north determined to advise with the colonists at large. The persons who a.s.sembled at their call were undecided; the friends of abolition desired delay; its determined opponents deprecated public discussion; but to the majority deliberation seemed necessary, and on the motion of Mr. Dry a committee was const.i.tuted who were requested to collect evidence, to make a report, and draft a reply to the circular of the governor.[254]

The tradesmen of that public spirited community first expressed their sentiments. A few transportationists induced a respectable shopkeeper to propose thirty-nine reasons for the continuance of transportation, but the warmth of his elocution and the frequent repet.i.tion of "because" in an Aberdeen accent, dissolved his party in laughter. The good humoured logician acquiesced in the voice of the a.s.sembly and abandoned the cause of transportation for ever. The meeting convened of the northern colonists a.s.sembled on the 10th of May. The committee appointed on the 3d of April having prepared a report, and founded on its conclusions a reply to the circular, it was signed by the chairman, James c.o.x, Esq., of Clarendon.[255] Many who were formerly advocates for transportation as it once existed, saw its dangers when they became anxious for the moral and social welfare of their sons. They were formerly but flockmasters, but they had become the founders of a state. They learned from the discussions of the ministers that what they had thought a service rendered to the crown was deemed disgraceful and degrading.

Opulent settlers who visited Europe found it convenient to conceal their home, and some less prudent were repelled with unconquerable distrust.[256] In a small community the public reputation is of personal importance, and it was alleged that to neglect the offer of social freedom would be infamy unexampled. To this feeling the abolitionists appealed. "Parents of Van Diemen's Land," said the author of a pamphlet called _Common Sense_, "can you hesitate? Let the timid and sordid doubt,--let them reckon the farthing they may lose! Let your hearts dictate your answer to the circular. Let it be worthy Britons, Christians, and Parents. Shew that you prize your rights, and that you love your children. That land which they tell you will become a desert when the clank of chains, the cries of torture, the noise of riot, and the groans of despair shall be heard no longer, will _not_ become a desert; 'it will blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing,'

when your sons and daughters shall go forth, the free among the free.

Consult your own understandings, that you may obey the dictates of your hearts. The Sovereign has invited you to express your desire. Let it not be one that will cause the eyes of mankind to look upon you with abhorrence, and turn away with contempt. Make not your name a scorn and a hissing! Perform your duty, AND SAVE YOUR ADOPTED COUNTRY!"

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 252: Mr. Boyd, August 29, 1845.]

[Footnote 253: Dr. Hampton to the Commissioner of P. P., Aug. '45.]

[Footnote 254: The committee was const.i.tuted by the following gentlemen:--Wm. Archer, J.P., W. H. Browne, L.L.D., James c.o.x, J.P., R.

Dry. M.L.C., F. M. Innes, Esq., J. G. Jennings, J.P., W. R. Pugh, M.D., J.P., H. Reed, J.P., J. Thompson, Esq., and J. A. Youl, J. P.]