ON TRANSPORTATION.

MAY 5, 1840.

[To this motion Lord John Russell moved the previous question. It is significant of the temper of the time when colonial questions were concerned that Sir W. Molesworth's great speech and Lord John's defence were addressed to almost empty benches. Sir W. Molesworth, in reply, said that "as the noble lord had not decidedly said that a time might not come when transportation should be abolished, he trusted the time was not far off. He would not divide the House, but would be contented with having his motion recorded on the votes."]

SIR,-In submitting to the consideration of the House the motion of which I have given notice, the task which I have to perform is both difficult and painful; difficult on account of the extent of the subject; painful on account of the nature of many of the facts to which it will be my duty to refer. I assure the House, however, that I do not approach this subject without having long and carefully studied it, or without having carefully examined and weighed every opinion and every fact connected with it. I therefore presume to solicit a patient and attentive hearing.

The report of the Committee to which this motion relates was laid on the table at the end of the Session of 1838. Two reasons prevented me last year from bringing the topics contained in that report before Parliament. First I entertained the

hope that the executive Government would have come forward with some general measure founded upon that report, which would have rendered any motion unnecessary. I was unwilling, therefore, to embarrass the Government, in a matter which is one of great difficulty, by any premature steps. Secondly, as that report contained many facts reflecting on the moral character of the penal colonies, I was earnestly entreated, by several persons connected with those colonies, not to call upon Parliament for an opinion, before an opportunity could be afforded to the colonists to peruse those statements, and to contradict them if incorrect. Now that full time has been given both to the Government to mature their plans, and to the colonists to reply to any mis-statements, there can be no objection to asking Parliament to consider the subject of this motion.

The Committee in question, and of which I had the honour to be chairman, was appointed for the threefold purpose, first, of inquiring into the efficacy of transportation as a punishment; secondly, of ascertaining its moral effect on the penal colonies; and lastly, the Committee were directed to consider of what improvements the existing system was susceptible. A very few words would be sufficient to state the result of those inquiries if I could suppose that honourable members had read any considerable portion of that report; but as it cannot be supposed that such has been the case, I must endeavour, as briefly as I can, to state the grounds upon which the Committee came to their conclusions.

The materials from which the Committee formed

their opinions were of the best possible description. They were chiefly official documents, furnished by the Colonial Office, consisting of despatches, reports to and from the Governors of the penal colonies, and criminal returns. Numerous witnesses were examined; but in order to avoid any cavil as to the credibility of those witnesses, not one fact of any importance has been stated by the Committee in their own report which is not corroborated by official documents. And for the same reason, in the observations which I shall make to-night, I shall confine myself almost entirely to those documents.

The first subject of which I shall speak is the nature of transportation, and the condition of the convict under that punishment. Transportation is a compound punishment, consisting of three distinct elements: banishment from this country; compulsory labour in a penal colony; and the various punishments by which that compulsory labour is enforced. It is not necessary at present to say anything of the effects of mere banishment; I will proceed at once to describe the condition of the convict in the penal colonies. The penal colonies of Great Britain are, first, and largest, New South Wales, founded in 1787. To this place 75,200 criminals have been transported; and in the year 1836 the number of offenders under punishment there were, men 25,254; women 2,577. The next in magnitude is Van Diemen's Land, founded in 1804; to which, since 1817, 27,759 convicts have been sent; and of which the criminal population, in 1835, consisted of 14,914 men, and 2,054 women. The third is Norfolk Island, a dependency of New

South Wales, which contains about 1,200 convicts. The last which must be mentioned is Bermuda, containing about 900 convicts. Bermuda need not again be referred to, as the condition of the convicts there is nearly the same as that of convicts in the hulks; my observations will, therefore, be confined to the Australian colonies.

The greater portion of the punishment of the convicts in these colonies consists in compulsory labour; that labour is either enforced by officers of the Government or by private individuals, to whom the convicts are assigned as servants. I will first speak of the latter class, which is by far the most numerous one, as it contained in 1836 about 29,000 convicts. A convict is said to be assigned when the right of the Government to the labour of the convict is made over to some private individual, who becomes his master. The master determines, according to his will and pleasure, the nature and amount of labour to be exacted from his convict servant; therefore, as the House must at once. perceive, the condition of an assigned convict depends entirely upon the character, temper, position in society, and occupation of his master, and is, consequently, as uncertain as those circumstances are uncertain. For instance, some convicts become domestic servants, and frequently receive wages; others, if possessing mechanical skill, are employed in various trades, and are highly prized; the greater portion, however, are occupied either in agriculture or in tending flocks and herds. In the families of some settlers convicts are as well treated as servants ordinarily are in this country. In other families their fate is far different; they may be

considered to be slaves; for the power of the master to cause punishment to be inflicted on his convict servant is very great, and the punishments, even for trifling offences, are very severe. In proof of this,

the words of the law may be cited, by which it will appear that a convict may be summarily punished for "drunkenness, disobedience of orders, neglect of work, absconding, abusive language to his master or overseer, or any other disorderly or dishonest conduct, by imprisonment, solitary confinement, labour in irons, or fifty lashes." And this law is by no means inoperative. In 1835 the convict population of New South Wales did not exceed 23,000; the summary convictions, chiefly for the offences just mentioned, amounted to 22,000; and the number of lashes inflicted exceeded 100,000. In Van Diemen's Land, in 1834, the convict population was about 15,000; the summary convictions were nearly 15,000; and the number of lashes inflicted there exceeded 50,000. On the other hand, it should be remarked that a convict, if ill-treated by his master, may apply to a bench of magistrates for redress; but then the majority of those magistrates are generally owners of convict labour.

Instead of troubling the House with any observations of my own on the general effects of the assignment system, I will read a few short extracts from the written opinions of the persons who must necessarily have been best acquainted with this subject, and whose authority will have the greatest weight with the House. Sir George

Arthur, late Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land, has given a most graphic description of the assignment system, in a despatch which is