The Resumption of Transportation Debate
In 1839, transportation of convicts to Moreton Bay ceased, the Brisbane
penal settlement closed, and the region opened up to free settlers. During the 1840s the pastoral industry boomed
and by 1850 there were over two million sheep in what was then known as the
Northern Districts of the New South Wales Colony. The squatters were desperately short of
labour and had begun to import Chinese coolies.
Although convict transportation had officially ceased, the British
started a new scheme in 1844 to thin out their prison population. Prisoners of good conduct could opt to serve
out the rest of their sentences as “exiles” in Australia. They would be free to work for pay but had to
remain in the district to which they were assigned. In the colonies these convicts were known as
“Pentonville Exiles” because most of them came from the newly built Pentonville
Prison in London.
 |
| Convicts exercising in Pentonville Prison |
The scheme was not popular in the colonies as it had the scent of a
return to the old convict days. By 1849,
the southern settlements refused to allow convict ships to land in their
ports. Subsequently, the final group of
“Pentonville Exiles” set sail for the Moreton Bay Settlement. The Moreton Bay Courier reported the
news.
A New Convict Settlement.-Her
Majesty's Secretary for the Colonies having consented to the transportation of
convicts to Moreton Bay, New South Wales, a vessel is about to be despatched
with 400 males to that colony, a great number being Pentonville exiles, who
from good conduct have had their sentences mitigated.[1]
The arrival of the convict ship caused great excitement in Brisbane,
and the exiles were snapped up by labour starved employers, even by those who,
the local correspondent observed wryly, were previously outspoken opponents of
convict transportation.
CONVICT ARRANGEMENTS.
IMMEDIATELY on the arrival of the prison ship “Mountstuart
Elphinstone” having been made known yesterday morning, a general excitement was
evident amongst such of the employers of, labour, and agents of such persons, as were in town. It
was intimated that the men would re- main on board of the ship until hired, and
that they were to be removed at the expense of the persons who engaged them,
but that the vessel would not be suffered to remain longer than ten days, at
the utmost, in this port, as she was under engagement to return to Sydney with
the military guard and surplus stores.
 |
| The Mountstewart Elphinstone 1840 |
The arrangement was almost prudent one on the part of the
Commissariat authorities, and was exactly suited to the capacities of those for
whom it was intended. Accordingly the bait was eagerly snapped at, and there
was a general rush to engage boats and other aquatic conveyances for the bay.
Amongst the most eager of the competitors, Asmodeus[2]
would have smiled to see many of the bold patriots who were lately loudest in
their condemnation of the convict system. Alas! human nature is frail, and it would
be too much to expect that conscience should be placed in unprofitable
opposition to business. However, the principals and delegates started off to
the ship yesterday, and in all probability before this sheet is dry the whole
of the prisoners on board will have been engaged, the completion of their
sentences of transportation having been kindly undertaken by the colonists.
Thus was the great debate regarding free labour, convict labour, and
Chinese labour ignited. Public meetings
were called to discuss the issue. In
January 1850 a rowdy meeting of “squatters and other employers of labour” was
held in Ipswich. The gathering assembled at the Court House but then moved to innkeeper George Thorn's billiard room.
 |
| Ipswich Court House, 1860 |
The CHAIRMAN opened the meeting by stating that he was
happy to see so many employers of labour present upon this important occasion.
He was sorry that there was any
difference of opinion as regarded the proposed introduction of exiles. It was
not disputed that the supply of labour was unequal to the demand, and the only
question was whether employers would or would not be prepared to receive
exiles, as they could not get free immigrants.[3]
The proposition was put by Mr. Bigge, a prominent squatter, who spoke
in favour of the resumption of transportation.
Mr. BIGGE read the proposition, which was to the effect
that the continuance of transportation to Moreton Bay was desirable, and that a
memorial ought to be adopted, soliciting the Secretary of State for the
Colonies to send out exiles, accompanied by an equal number of free immigrants.
Flocks and herds were increasing rapidly, but population
did not increase in proportion. As they wanted labour, he would rather have the
pick of gaols than the refuse of workhouses.[4]
 |
| A large mob of sheep in Western Queensland |
The Reverend Stewart rose to oppose the proposition and to propose an amendment.
The Rev. C. STEWART had an amendment to propose, to the
effect that the resumption of transportation would be injurious to the moral,
social, and political welfare of the colony.
He could give many reasons in favour of the amendment. If
only self respect was considered, it should be sufficient to induce them to
oppose the introduction of the filth of the earth, and the scouring» of gaols.
Employers said that their property was wasted for want of
labour, and if they could not get good they must have bad men. But he wanted to
show them that society was based on rules which circumstances could not affect;
that they should support starving and virtuous families, in preference to those
who had broken the rules of decorum and virtue. It seemed that persons who had
transgressed against those rules, and who, in consequence, were condemned to be
transported, were wanted by the
squatters.[5]
Patrick Leslie, a wealthy squatter on the Darling Downs and a major
employer, naturally opposed the amendment.
He spoke eloquently amid many interjections, when appeared in the
newspaper report in square brackets. He
turned the debate to the question as to whether they wanted exiles or Chinese
labourers.
 |
| The Honourable Patrick Leslie, Squatter |
Mr. P. LESLIE was opposed to the amendment, and, if they
would allow him, he would quietly state his reasons. It had been already
stated, and was well known to every person of experience in the colony, that
more labour must be obtained from some source or other: for that, as the flocks
and herds increased in a greater proportion than the increase of the
population, a continuous influx of fresh persons was required to keep pace with
the demands of the flock masters. The mode that was now offered to supply this
want was by the introduction of exiles. ["No convicts!"]
They were not convicts, but held most of the privileges of free men. It was known to everybody there that no distinction was made between old hands[6] and immigrants. ["There is! There is!"]
 |
| An "Old Hand" Ex-convict |
The question before the meeting was not whether they
would receive exiles or immigrants, but whether they would receive Chinese and
Coolies with immigrants. ["No Chinese!" and loud cheers]
He had been fifteen years in the colony, and had been a
large employer of labour; he had had government men[7]
in his employment, and he had not the ingratitude to say that his government
men had ruined him; far from it. He had never found any difference between
those men and immigrant labourers. There were good and bad of both parties.[8]
One speaker rose to challenge Leslie’s spin on the question at hand.
Mr. RICHARDSON, in supporting the amendment, said that
there was an error he wished to correct. Mr. Leslie had said that the question
was exiles or Chinese and Coolies. Now, although he (the speaker) advocated
free labour, he neither wanted Chinese nor Coolies.
He would rather pay a free man £20 a year than one of
those "exiles" £12. While he claimed candour for himself, he gave Mr.
Leslie credit for the same, but he agreed with a speaker at one of the Brisbane
meetings, that "cheap labour," so called, was in the end dear labour!
He observed by the late papers that 37 English ships were laid on for these
colonies in the month of September ("But none for Moreton Bay."). The
introduction of exiles would be hurtful
to every working man.
 |
| Anti- Chinese Immigration Cartoon |
The meeting ended with no consensus reached by the squatters and their
opponents.
Eventually the Chairman decided that the majority of the
meeting was certainly ¡n favour of the amendment; but that a majority of the
employers of labour was in favour of the resolution." Judging from
appearances, it seemed likely that the graziers who voted for the resolution,
and the other gentlemen who voted with them, were larger employers of labour,
in the aggregate, than were those who voted on the other side: but it was
purely a public meeting; evidently made so only from some strong faith in an influence
over the labouring men; and which faith was without any solid foundation.
Ultimately the campaign to reintroduce the transportation of British
convicts failed. A few years later a
more acceptable source of labour was found – the German States. The first emigrant ships which sailed directly
from Hamburg arrived in Moreton Bay in 1855.
By the end of the 19th century, one third of the population
of Queensland was either born in Germany or was of German descent.
©
K. C. Sbeghen, 2012.
[1] The
Moreton Bay Courier Monday 30 July 1849
[2]
Hebrew King of Demons
[3] The
Moreton Bay Courier Monday 14 January 1850
[4] The Moreton Bay Courier Monday 14
January 1850
[5] The Moreton Bay Courier Monday 14 January
1850
[6]
Old ex-convicts.
[7]
Ticket of Leave men.
[8] The Moreton Bay Courier Monday 14
January 1850
very interesting.have never read any of this valuable information until today .good work on somebodies part.
ReplyDelete