and another there to consider that advantages might be gained by convict labour. There was so much development work to do, and so few people to do it, that they began to think this a cheap and ready means to the inauguration of a new era. They wanted foreign labour, and knew that with convicts they would necessarily obtain foreign capital and a larger local market for their perishable products.
The first proposals during the more recent period were ignominiously scouted, and opprobrious names were heaped on the inoffensive heads which propounded them. But the "wicked" thought was expressed, the luminous pictures of development and progress which it begot were retained in the mind, and after other years of unhappy striving the proposals were looked upon with more favour. The thought grew with what it fed on, and numerous colonists were finally won over to the proposal to make Western Australia a convict colony.
At a general meeting of the York Agricultural Society, held on 6th April, 1844, Mr. S. E. Burges moved this resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this meeting that, inasmuch as the present land regulations have entirely destroyed our labour fund, we conceive that the Home Government are bound in justice to supply us with some kind of labour, and after mature deliberation we have come to the determination of petitioning the Secretary of State for the Colonies for a gang of forty convicts—to be exclusively employed in public works." Mr. J. F. Smith seconded; the motion was not put. Instead, a committee was appointed to enquire into the matter. A public proposal for convicts was made, and, in a historical sense, their introduction became possible.
The newspapers published leading articles against them, on the grounds of costliness, undesirability, &c. Two weeks later Governor Hutt was interviewed, but refused to express an opinion. He promised, however, to forward a petition to the Secretary for the Colonies provided it was adequately signed, and really represented the sentiments of the people of the colony. Insufficient support was obtained for the petition, which therefore lapsed.
The next public reference was inimical to their introduction. In March and April, 1845, it was announced in the colony that the Tasmanian Government had promised pardons to certain felons conditional on their leaving the island and remaining in some one of the Australian colonies. A public meeting was held in Perth on 16th April to discuss this matter. The sheriff, who occupied the chair, described the evils likely to arise if Tasmanian convicts drifted into Western Australia. The meeting strongly disapproved of the action of the Tasmanian Government, and a memorial was subsequently forwarded to the Home Government asking, owing to the non-existence of safeguards, that any influx of convicts might be stopped. Colonists had long been praying for the presence of labour which never came, yet they conceitedly feared that convicts would be attracted. The Home Government refused to do what the memorialists wished, pointing out that if certain convicts had led a blameless life it did not seem just or reasonable that they should be refused the indulgence of seeking their own maintenance beyond the limits of Van Dieman's Land.
On 23rd July, 1845, a lengthy anonymous letter was published in the Inquirer in favour of introducing convicts. The writer observed that sixteen years of work had brought the people little prosperity, owing principally to the absence of sufficient labour. He asserted that some influential settlers favoured the "system," not because they admired it, but because they deemed it expedient. The proposal was one of policy, not principle; with the advent of convicts property would acquire a vast additional value; "imagine the numbers of increased officers of all Government grades, the numbers of houses they would require, to say nothing of the enormous consumption of all articles of food."
Two memorials had already been submitted to the people, and a third was now in course of circulation. The advocates for convictism were agitating with energy. Among the signatures already in the third memorial were the names of influential people. Mr. F. C. Singleton initiated a debate in the Legislative Council, on 24th July, 1845, in order to take the sense of the House. He described the arguments of the memorialists as specious, and said that it was positive madness to allow that convictism was the alternative before them. The colony did not want the "moral pestilence" and "frightful evil" which would result from it. Several resolutions were moved by Mr. Singleton, and were carried unanimously. They regretted that a memorial was being circulated favouring the inauguration of a penal settlement; explained that the colony was founded on the positive condition that convicts were never to be introduced; declared that the necessity for such an application was not apparent: for "no dearth of labour can be so extreme as to call for, or to warrant our having recourse to, such a hazardous expedient for a supply;" and hoped that the prospective moral evils would deter colonists from harbouring the idea for an instant. The Governor, the Commandant, and the Advocate-General strongly condemned the movement.
For the rest of 1845, and for all 1846, few public expressions of opinion were made; but the memorial slowly moved among settlers. At its draughting, in 1845, public opinion was generally against the introduction of convicts, but during its tedious progress the opinions of numerous settlers underwent a decided change. Constant deliberation on the subject was a natural sequel to their strong views concerning the necessity for more labour, and the impossibility of obtaining it while the land regulations were unchanged. They were converted to the opinion that a penal colony was expedient, and they signed the memorial. In this way the signatures of influential people were obtained.
The memorial, which purported in the preamble to emanate from "landowners, merchants, and inhabitants of Western Australia," set forth that capitalists were originally attracted to the colony upon certain principles, which were considered to be advantageous. Through "mismanagement, inexperience, and ignorance of the seasons, great numbers of the early settlers lost or expended the greater part of their capital" before they were able to obtain any interest, or produce, therefrom. But, from 1838 to 1842, struggling with "unparalleled difficulties," they began to entertain the hope that the steadily increasing influx of emigrants would raise the marketable value of land, stock, and other property. But Her Majesty's Government had, in 1841, seen fit to raise the price of Crown lands to £1 per acre, since which sales of those lands had ceased, and the fund produced from them and applied to import labour was no longer existent. The introduction of labour became impossible, and the immigration of both capitalists and labourers ceased simultaneously. Colonists were unable to extend their operations so as to produce a sufficient amount of exports to counterbalance the drain made upon the specie of the colony by the introduction of necessary imports. Emigration from this to other Australian colonies had begun; the rates of wages, in view of the scarcity of labourers, were expected to advance, thereby curtailing the operations of the agriculturist and flockowner, reducing the quantity of land which had been annually brought into cultivation, arresting the increase of flocks and herds and of all other sources of wealth, and enhancing the price of provisions and other necessaries to those whose means of procuring them were rapidly diminishing. Thus land and other property was deprived of any marketable value,
