P Mayberry
2004-04-15 13:51:38 UTC
Dear All,
The following extract is Chapter VIII of R B Madgwick's book titled
"Immigration into Eastern Australia 1788-1851." which was published by
Longmans, Green & Co in 1937.
I have changed the reference numbers and their location in the chapter.
They have been placed at the end of this posting.
Regards,
Peter Mayberry
Tuggeranong ACT
THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BOUNTY SYSTEM 1835-1841
The essential feature of the Bounty System as originally suggested by
Governor Bourke was that the colonists should themselves choose emigrants in
England and bring them to the colony, receiving from the colonial Government
a bounty equal or nearly equal to the cost of the passage. From this scheme
Bourke and the colonists expected several advantages. They would import
people whose occupations fitted them for colonial life and there would no
longer be any danger of an over-supply of tradesmen for whom no demand
existed. The cost of selecting emigrants in England would disappear, for the
colonists would bear the whole cost, as well as the whole responsibility for
the selections. The expense of maintaining the immigrants after their
arrival would be avoided, for they would already be engaged to serve the
settlers who imported them. But above all there would no longer be the
danger which the London Emigration Committee had failed to avoid, of
selecting people whose characters constituted a menace to the moral welfare
of the colony.
The colonists seem to have had no clear picture of how this system was to be
implemented. Bourke realized that few of them could afford the expense of
proceeding to England to select immigrants, or of maintaining an agency
there. Fewer still would have large enough sums available to defray the cost
of carrying out the tradesmen and labourers they selected or who were
selected for them in England. At the same time, however, he had made
suggestions to improve the selection of emigrants by the Government in
England, and he believed that the newly conceived Bounty System would
supplement the labourers which the Government System introduced and would
indicate the types of person for whom the colony's need was greatest.
The first set of Bounty regulations was contained in a Government Notice
issued at Sydney in October, 1835. The bounties offered were similar to
those subsequently granted by Elliot to Government emigrants. This is not
surprising, for Elliot endeavoured to make his system subserve the interests
of the colonies; and these were presumably expressed in the regulations
governing their own immigration system. The bounties offered were £30 for a
married man and his wife, providing neither was over thirty years of age on
embarkation, and £5 for each of their children over twelve months old. £15
was allowed "for every unmarried female whose age shall not be below fifteen
nor above thirty years, who shall come out with the consent of the settler
or his agent, under the protection of the married couple, as forming part of
the family, and destined to remain with it until such female be otherwise
provided for. "A bounty of £10 was granted for every unmarried male
immigrant between eighteen and twenty-five," brought out by a settler, who
at the same time brings out an equal number of females, accompanying and
attached to a family." All the adult males were to be either mechanics or
farm servants.
On arrival in the colony the immigrants were to appear before a Board
appointed by the Governor to examine the testimonials of character which
they had to bring with them. These were to be signed by "clergymen and
respectable inhabitants" in the districts from which the immigrants came.
Where possible the Board desired to see certified copies of baptismal
registers; and by this and other means satisfy themselves as to the ages of
the immigrants. If these documents were in order, and the Board was
satisfied that the immigrants were of "good bodily health and strength, and
in all other respects likely to be useful members of their class in
society," a certificate to that effect would be granted entitling settlers
to the sums due to them.
In order to keep an effective check on the number of people introduced,
settlers had to provide the Colonial Secretary with a list of the persons
they desired to introduce, with a description of their "condition and
calling." No bounties were to be paid unless this were done and the settler
produced a permit intimating that the Government in the colony was prepared
to pay bounties on the people it described. Permission could not be given
for bounties on the wives and families of soldiers serving in New South
Wales or Van Diemen's Land, or of convicts serving sentences in either of
the two colonies. The Government Notice also set out quite clearly that on
no account would any payments be made in addition to the bounties, so that
all the expenses of collecting the immigrants and conveying them to the
colony had to be met out of the sums set out in the notice. (1) The
invitation to settlers to submit lists of the immigrants they intended to
introduce was originally to remain open until November, 1835. But it was
later extended to June, 1836, and finally made more or less permanent,
except when shortage of funds caused a suspension of assisted immigration.
The notice of October, 1835, embodied certain important principles around
which controversy raged, particularly after 1840. The vital provision was
that which gave the Board in the colony power to refuse bounties on
immigrants whom they deemed unsuited to the needs of the colonies as to age,
occupation, health and strength or fitness for colonial life. The colonists
argued that the fear of having bounties refused would prevent settlers from
introducing unsuitable immigrants. If not, the Board would still refuse
payment of bounties, and the colony would be saved the expense of their
passage. To the colonists one of the most objectionable features of the
Government System was that however bad the arrivals might be the colonists
had to pay for their introduction. The only redress was to send a complaint
home to the Government selecting officers, and hope that the mistakes would
not be repeated.
At first sight the establishment of the Examining Board seems to have
provided an effective check against attempts to evade the regulations. There
were, however, several difficulties inherent in the regulations which in
practice prevented this check from operating effectively. The officers
comprising the Board had no means of making certain that the testimonials of
character were genuine. Where immigrants could not produce copies or
extracts from parish registers, the Board had to rely on their ability to
judge the ages of the arrivals, at no time an easy thing to do. There was no
effective method of discovering whether the applicant for bounty was
accustomed to work at the trade or occupation he professed. Moreover, it was
doubtful whether the bounties offered were great enough to be attractive to
settlers, who were averse to bearing any part of the expense of introducing
servants. Allied to this last difficulty was the question of securing a
sufficiently large number of people between the ages set out in the
regulations.
These were difficulties inherent in the regulations. Other problems
developed later with regard to the interpretation and administration of the
provisions regarding unmarried men and women. Had the system operated as its
sponsors hoped these would never have arisen; but it proved unworkable in
its purest form. Settlers had neither the money nor the opportunity to
arrange for the introduction of the servants they required, and the Bounty
System soon fell into the hands of shipowners and speculators. But before
considering these difficulties of administration it is necessary to trace
very briefly the major changes that took place in the regulations
themselves, some of which occurred in response to immediate practical
problems.
The number of applications for bounty permits exceeded the expectation of
the most optimistic observers; but complaints soon arose about the cost of
the selection and despatch of the emigrants. By 1837 the difficulty of
filling the ships had threatened seriously to reduce the number of bounty
emigrants at a time when the need for labour was becoming more intense. The
fear persisted that bounty agents might be tempted to fill their ships with
undesirables if the scope of their selections were unduly restricted. The
colonists were faced with the same problem which Elliot faced in his
administration of the Government System. A sufficient number of young
married couples was not to be found if strict attention were paid to the
character and occupations of the applicants. Rather than agree to lowering
their standards of physical and moral quality the Immigration Committee of
1837 recommended that the ages be extended and the bounties increased.
Accordingly the age was raised to forty years in the case of married men,
without reference to the age of their wives, and half bounties were allowed
to men and women over forty who accompanied their families to the colony,
provided that the latter were eligible immigrants and able to support their
parents in the colony. At the same time a new scale of bounties was fixed as
follows :-
Man and wife, without family - £36
Each unmarried male - £18
Each unmarried female - £18
Children from 7 to 14 years - £10
Children from 1 to 7 years - £5
Another recommendation of the 1837 Committee is interesting because of its
bearing on future controversies, although it was vetoed by the Governor. The
Committee pointed out that the disparity between the sexes had been greatly
exaggerated. The most pressing need in the colony was for unmarried men
capable of performing general farm labour. They therefore proposed that the
immigration should in future be made up of three-eighths unmarried men, two-
eighths unmarried women, and three-eighths married mechanics and farm
servants. This recommendation would have required a modification of the
bounty regulations to enable the shippers to carryout a greater number of
single men than single women. Bourke refused his assent because he believed
that in the long run the disproportion of the sexes would prove more
detrimental to the colony than the shortage of unmarried farm labourers and
house servants. This attitude on the part of the Committee illustrates very
clearly the inconsistency of the colonists and their willingness to
sacrifice principle to expediency in the conduct of their own immigration
policy. Later, when shipowners attempted to send out single men
unaccompanied by equal numbers of single women, the Board in the colony
insisted on the letter of the regulations and refused to allow payment of
bounties. But by then control over the Bounty System had to a large extent
been taken out of their hands and vested in the Land and Emigration
Commissioners. (2)
Further increases in the cost of the Bounty System were made following the
report of the Immigration Committee of 1839. These aimed at securing a more
efficient operation of the service by increasing the gratuities to surgeons-
and officers of the immigrant ships and by allowing a gratuity to teachers
appointed for the voyage and to hospital assistants and overseers. The
Committee hoped by these means to call forth greater care from the officers
who alone could prevent immorality during the voyage, and in whose hands lay
the health and safety of the passengers. Without these innovations, the
Committee foresaw a recurrence of scenes of immorality and disorder which in
the past had exercised a most undesirable influence on the characters of the
immigrants. The effect of the increases was to raise the cost of bounty
immigration to the colonial Government by about thirty shillings per head.
These amendments were introduced by a Government Notice, dated 3rd March,
1840. At the same time further important changes were made to encourage the
introduction of useful mechanics and agricultural labourers. The bounty for
married couples was increased to £38 and their ages extended to forty. The
regulations covering single men and women were retained, but the bounties
were increased to £19, except for women over fifteen who were accompanying
their parents. For them the bounty was to be £15. No alteration was made in
the bounties for children, and it was made clear that on no account would
children under fifteen be received as immigrants unless they were
accompanying their parents. These changes were important for several
reasons, although they do not indicate any alteration in the principles on
which the system was based. By far the most important effect of the
persistent increases in the rates of bounty was the inducement they offered
for speculators in England to enter the business of emigration. This proved
in the long run to be the most pernicious feature of the whole system, for
it caused widespread abuse and repeated attempts by unscrupulous shipowners
to evade the regulations.
The Committee of 1839 were not unmindful of the abuses that had already
occurred, and realised that the increased bounties would offer a greater
temptation for similar abuses in the future. The regulations of March, 1840,
therefore laid down strict conditions which shipowners had to fulfil before
they received the bounty from the Examining Board. In addition to the
certificates covering the characters of the immigrants, the Board
henceforward required a certificate that the provisions and accommodation
provided during the voyage were in accordance with those laid down in the
Passengers Act, and that the comfort of the immigrants had been
conscientiously safeguarded. The Board was to decide also respecting the
conduct of the surgeon and officers of the ship and retained the right to
withhold their gratuities if there were any evidence of their slackness or
misconduct. The shippers were to be prevented from discharging their
passengers immediately on arrival in the colony, as they had done in the
past. This practice had produced serious consequences on the characters of
the single women who had been cast defenceless into a society where moral
standards were in many respects deplorably low. Henceforward the shipper was
required to provide the immigrants with suitable accommodation on shore or
to allow them to remain on the ship for a period not exceeding ten days
after their arrival at their destination. During that period he was to
supply them with rations equivalent to those they had received during the
voyage. Finally, in order to leave no loophole at all through which abuses
might creep into the conduct of the system, the shippers were specifically
warned that the regulations would be rigidly construed. They therefore
risked the loss of bounty if they endeavoured to introduce immigrants whose
ages, occupations or characters did not bring them under the provisions of
the Notice. Henceforward the Board was determined to insist on the letter as
well as the spirit of the regulations. (3)
It has been necessary to discuss the changes in the bounty regulations in
some detail because they explain the type of people the colonists desired to
introduce. They were designed to remove abuses that had already crept into
the working of the system and to prevent others in the future. A study of
the motives behind the gradual tightening up of the regulations should
therefore provide some indication of the quality of the bounty immigrants
between 1835 and 1840.
The Notice of March, 1840, altered the regulations covering the ages of
immigrants and the bounties that would be allowed on their introduction.
They did not seriously affect the general basis of the Bounty System. As yet
the Land Board in England exercised practically no control over bounty
emigration (4) except through their agents at the outports, otherwise the
whole control lay with the colonies, and continued to do so until 1841 when
the Land Board interfered to prevent fraud and to secure a more satisfactory
selection of immigrants.
The regulations were never effective, despite the care bestowed on them by
the colonists. The system gradually degenerated into a commercial
speculation controlled by British shipowners, of whom John Marshall was the
most important. At no time between 1835 and 1840 was the system conducted as
its founders had hoped. The distance of the colony from the United Kingdom
prevented the selection of immigrants by the colonists. Accordingly the
bounty permits were transferred to English shipowners who became the agents
of the original holders. It was an easy step from this to the establishment
in Sydney of agents representing shipping interests in England. (5) Once
this practice became common it was no longer necessary for shippers to
continue the fiction that they acted for the colonists. Their agents applied
for, and were granted permits in their own names, and the shippers
introduced any immigrants their agents might choose in England. The wishes
of individual settlers, in whose interest the Bounty System had originally
been established, were no longer considered. While the business was retained
by a few shippers this divergence from the principles of the system did not
produce very serious results. (6) The number of ships dispatched to the
colonies was not great and the Board was quite capable within limits of
exercising a vigilant control over them. There was in fact no great
temptation for the bounty agents in England to defraud the Government. While
the Government System was also in full operation the number of bounty
immigrants was relatively small, and the ships could be filled without any
difficulty. As the bounties were gradually increased and the age limits
extended, more shippers found the returns attractive and entered into the
business to compete with the established firms. It was inevitable in these
circumstances that less care should be given to the selections, for with
increased competition profits became gradually smaller. Similarly the ships
were no longer as carefully selected, or as well fitted out as they had
been, and in several instances the owners endangered the lives of the
emigrants by loading every available space with cargo for sale in the
colony. But perhaps the most serious charge levelled at the bounty agents in
England was that they knowingly deceived the people they were persuading to
emigrate. (7) The only check to abuse and misrepresentation rested with the
Board in the colony, who were both unable and unwilling to exercise it.
Their chief concern was to prevent paying bounties on people who were
ineligible by the regulations. As a result there was no check on the
proceedings of the shipowners in England. (8) They changed their
arrangements at will, thereby ruining people who had taken all the necessary
steps to settle their affairs in England. They took no effective steps to
secure discipline during the voyage. And they published false reports on the
progress of emigration and the state of the colonies. (9) Even John
Marshall, with all his experience as Agent to the London Emigration
Committee, misrepresented his position in England and made statements, which
he knew to be false, about the inducements offered by the colony to poor
emigrants. The Colonial Office drew his attention to the erroneous
impression he was creating and asked him to conduct his enterprise more
strictly in accordance with the true facts of the position. (10) When he
failed to do so, the Colonial Office was powerless. (11) Marshall continued
to describe himself as the Agent of the Colonial Government, and, in other
ways also, deceived the people with whom he hoped to fill his ships. (12)
The colonists argued that from their point of view what happened in England
was of minor importance, so long as they retained power to prevent the
introduction of undesirable immigrants at the public expense. (13) They
claimed, moreover, that the regulations operated satisfactorily. Up to 1839
the Board had only disallowed bounties on about one per cent of the
arrivals. (14)
This would have been an unanswerable argument if the Examining Board had
been in a position to check the statements made by the immigrants and the
documents they produced to support them. In practice they were unable to do
so. Shipowners provided ineligible applicants with forged references of age,
occupation and character, (15) and very often these were sufficient to
satisfy the Board. Suspicion was only likely to be aroused if the age of the
applicant was obviously different from that set down in his certificate.
Even then the Board had no means of disproving the statement of the
immigrant, for birth certificates or copies from baptismal registers were
not compulsory by the regulations, and could often not have been secured if
the regulations had required them. In some cases the clergymen or
magistrates who gave the references had no personal knowledge of the
applicants. In other cases undesirable inhabitants of a village or district
in England were provided with the necessary documents by officials or
magistrates who desired nothing more than their departure from England. Only
rarely could the Examining Board detect the imposition. They had no
knowledge of the people who signed the certificates, and it was obviously
impossible to send to England to have the signatures verified. The
examination in the colony was therefore perfunctory, and indecisive. Numbers
of people probably escaped detection who were in no sense the type specified
in the colonial regulations.
Nevertheless, criticism of the bounty immigrants was extremely rare before
1841. From time to time comments were made in the colony about the
unsatisfactory quality of some of the arrivals, particularly the single
women. Marshall was accused of sacrificing the interests of the colony for
his own profit, and of filling his ships with paupers because they were more
easily collected. (16) Criticism was, however, subordinated to the task of
convincing the home Government that the Bounty System was both necessary and
desirable. Even when they took exception to bounty immigrants the colonists
were careful to point out that they still preferred their own system to that
run by the Government in London. Official opinion also was always staunchly
in favour of the Bounty System, and it was unusual for the reports of the
Immigration Agent or the Immigration Committee to attack the conduct of the
bounty agents or the type of people the system introduced. This was
particularly true of the reports of James Pinnock, who became Agent for
Immigration at Sydney in 1837.
If it were possible to rely on Pinnock's reports, there would be no doubt
that the bounty immigrants were thoroughly desirable additions to the
population. He had every opportunity of examining the importations, for he
was Chairman of the Examining Board, and visited all the immigrant ships as
they arrived. His reports were the main source of information to which the
colonists had access. He was one of the chief witnesses before the various
Immigration Committees, whose reports were always coloured by his evidence.
In short he was in a position to sway public opinion in the colony on
questions relating to immigration; and he never missed an opportunity of
stressing the merits of the Bounty System. It has already been shown that
Pinnock had a thorough knowledge of emigration from the English end, for he
had been in turn a clerk in the Colonial Office, a link between the Office
and the London Emigration Committee, and the Colonial Emigration Agent at
London. Presumably, therefore, he could speak with authority, for he was
fully cognizant of the methods used by Marshall and the other bounty agents.
Unfortunately the bitterness with which he attacked the Government System
was shown to have been not disinterested. He was accused by the Land Board
of knowingly misrepresenting facts. They asserted that Pinnock was known to
be a "warm partisan of the principal importer of people on Bounty," and that
he "acted rather like (Marshall's) agent than a paid and responsible servant
of the public." (17) They traced this close connection with Marshall back to
the period when Pinnock was working in collaboration with the London
Emigration Committee. In the colony Pinnock was accused of writing his
reports only after close collaboration with Marshall's agent. (18) The Land
Board produced evidence to prove that he was so biased in favour of the
Bounty System that he was incapable of providing any useful information on
its operation. They did not accuse him of corruption but insinuated that his
opinions were dictated by his private interests. (19) Whether or not Pinnock
stood to gain by his support of Marshall and the Bounty System cannot be
determined. James Stephen admitted that the close connection between Pinnock
and Marshall was well known to him. This caused him to see "some appearance
of a malevolent intention in Mr. Pinnock's mis-statement." (20) On another
occasion Stephen's minute described Pinnock as a man of " light and unstable
character on whose good conduct in a situation such as that he now fills, it
was, I think, not reasonable to calculate." In this minute, however, Stephen
was careful not to impute dishonest intention to Pinnock ; and suggested
that he might perhaps be given some other appointment in the colony. (21)
Instructions to remove Pinnock from his position were sent to New South
Wales in February, 1841, (22) and caused "a considerable sensation in the
colony" where he was "generally considered a useful and trustworthy servant
of the Public." (23) Pinnock's answer to these charges of carelessness,
inaccuracy and dishonesty was not impressive, and his case was not
strengthened by the counter charge he levelled at the members of the Land
Board and particularly at Elliot. (24) He was appointed Deputy Registrar at
Port Phillip and his place in Sydney was taken by Francis Merewether against
whom no such charges were ever made. (25)
It has been necessary to treat Pinnock's dismissal in some detail for
obvious reasons. Whether the falsity of his reports was due to carelessness
or to conscious misrepresentation arising out of his personal interest in
the Bounty System, the fact remains that all the evidence in favour of the
bounty immigrants becomes at once suspect. If he was as dishonest as the
Land Board and the Colonial Office feared him to be, he was perhaps not
above passing immigrants who were ineligible for assistance. In such
circumstances the fact that so few bounties were refused is no indication at
all of the desirability of the immigration. One hesitates to impute such
questionable methods to a man who was widely respected in the colony;
particularly when the Governor, the Legislative Council and the colonists as
a whole agreed that Pinnock's support of the Bounty System was justified by
the type of people it introduced. At the same time Pinnock may have regarded
minor breaches of the regulations, and possibly even major breaches, very
leniently in the hope that lack of criticism of the system would induce the
home Government to support it in preference to its alternative. Taken in
conjunction with the almost insuperable difficulties which faced the
Examining Board in the colony, Pinnock's pronounced bias for the Bounty
System strengthens the case made out against it by the Land Board and the
Colonial Office.
Thus in England the incentive towards quick profits gave rise to fraud and
misrepresentation and the choice of people who were unfitted by age,
occupation or character for the Government bounty. In the colony the
inability of Pinnock to clear himself from charges of negligence or
dishonesty helped to throw the Bounty System into disrepute. If the
Government System operated badly, there remains no reason for supposing that
the Bounty System was in any sense its superior in the type of people it
introduced. In practice, the System was uncontrolled; the check in England
on the operation of the Government System did not apply to it, and the
colonial machinery had broken down. Obviously other measures were necessary
if the colonial funds were to be spent wisely.
These were provided by the new regulations of January, 1841, which for the
first time were issued from London. They aimed at preventing abuses in
England while still leaving the ultimate control of bounty immigration in
the hands of the colonists. Throughout 1839 and 1840 the prevalence of
irregularities in the selection of emigrants and during the voyage to the
colonies had convinced the Colonial Office that some control was necessary
in England as well as in New South Wales. (26)
Attempts had been made by the Government agents at the outports to
counteract exaggeration and falsehood by the issue of correct information
and statistics about the colonies and the sickness and mortality that
occurred during the voyage in bounty ships as well as in those dispatched by
the Government. These attempts, however, had not succeeded in preventing
speculators from claiming authority which they did not possess, or from
acting in a most unscrupulous manner towards the poor and ignorant people
with whom they filled their ships. The failure was due very largely to the
invidious position in which the Land Board was placed. They had in fact no
authority over the activities of the bounty agents, who were responsible
solely to the Board in the colony, and for this reason their officers were
unable to remove the false impressions created by the agents of private
speculators.
The Land Board therefore asked for power to demand from bounty agents lists
of the bounty orders they held, lists of the ships they proposed to
dispatch, information regarding the districts from which they proposed to
choose emigrants, and the ports from which the ships were to sail. They
requested power also to demand the withdrawal of false or misleading
publications about the colonies, and asked that nothing should in future be
published before it had received their approval. The Board pointed out to
the Secretary of State that these precautions would in no sense destroy the
essential nature of the Bounty System. The Board would provide the shipper
with a certificate that he had committed no fraud or misrepresentation in
the selection of the immigrants. It would state that as far as the Board
could tell, the emigrants described in the lists were in fact those for whom
bounties would be claimed, and those covered by the documents which the
bounty agents proposed to present to the Examining Board in the colony. By
these means the Land Board hoped to prevent forged references and
misstatements as to age and occupation, and to put an end to the
questionable activities of the bounty agents. The Land Board would pass no
judgment on the desirability of the emigrants, nor would they attempt to
decide whether or not the regulations were being infringed. These would
still be tasks for the Board in the colony; but it was hoped that the
certificates of the Land Board would provide information which would help
the colonial Board to detect impositions and attempts at fraud. The Land
Board did not propose to control the regulations covering the number or type
of people for whose introduction bounties would be paid. This also would
remain entirely in the hands of the colonial authorities.
These suggestions received the ready consent of Lord John Russell and in
January, 1841, a notice appeared in the Royal Gazette intimating that
henceforward the Board's certificate must be secured by all persons desirous
of claiming bounties on emigrants dispatched to New South Wales or Van
Diemen's Land. The details of the scheme were contained in a notice issued
by the Land Board in March, 1841. (27) Every care was to be taken to check
the ages of the emigrants by demanding birth certificates or copies from the
registry of baptisms. A close control was to be exercised over all
publications issued by bounty agents. The ships were to be first class at
Lloyd's and the officers of the Land Board were to have the right to order a
survey if they were not satisfied of their seaworthiness. Instructions were
also issued to cover the fittings of the ship, the qualifications of the
surgeons, and all other matters relevant to the comfort and safety of the
passengers. The forms of certificate to be used were appended to the notice.
These were to be filled in and returned to the Land Board where they would
be checked, and returned with a covering certificate to that effect, if no
frauds were detected in them. These certificates were then to be presented
to the Board's agent at the port of embarkation whose duty it was to see
that the persons presenting themselves corresponded with the descriptions
contained in the certificates. On being satisfied of their genuineness, he
also provided the shipper with a certificate to that effect. Where it became
necessary through the default of applicants or for any other reason, for the
agent to fill his ship quickly, and where therefore it was impossible for
him to refer the certificates to the Land Board, the officer of the Board
was given power to issue a special certificate to the effect that he had
made the necessary inspection of the certificates, and had found them in
order.
The objects of the new regulations were set out in section eighteen, as were
the limits to the powers assumed by the Land Board. "An explanation may be
useful on one point. The signature of the Commissioners' Secretary will
attest the fact that the emigrants' certificates appear proper as documents;
and that there is no apparent reason to doubt the genuineness of the
signature or the truth of the description. Into these circumstances,
therefore, inquiry will be made if necessary. The signature of the
Commissioners' Agent will testify the apparent identity of the parties. But
their personal fitness, or the question whether or not they come properly
within the kind of emigrants for whom bounty is promised, will be left, as
at present, exclusively to the decision of the proper Board in the Colony."
Nevertheless, however satisfactory the colonial Board might find the
arrivals, no bounties were to be paid unless the claimant produced the
appropriate certificates from the Land Board and their agents.
These regulations were also to apply to Van Diemen's Land which, in general,
had avoided the abuses that had crept into the system as it applied to New
South Wales. There had been no assisted immigration to that colony after
1837 and the Bounty System had never been fully adopted. There were several
cogent reasons for this. The colonial revenues were not as buoyant as they
were in New South Wales and during these four years the colonists did not
feel justified in laying out what little money they had on the introduction
of immigrants. They might have adopted a different attitude if the
immigrants who had arrived during the previous years had come up to their
expectations. But, instead, shiploads of single women had arrived whose
characters often compared unfavourably with those of the convicts, and men
who seemed unable or unwilling to earn a living by their labour in the
colony. The failure of the immigration of labourers and tradesmen was due in
large measure to the high wages ruling in the Port Phillip district and in
South Australia, while in Van Diemen's Land the large number of convicts
kept wages fairly low. Accordingly the colony became no more than "a place
of transit for emigrant labourers" who proceeded to the mainland at the
first opportunity, leaving their wives and families in some cases to be
supported by the Government in Hobart or Launceston.
In these circumstances it was inevitable that the colonists should have
received with apathy or even opposition, all suggestions for a modified
system aimed at providing them with labourers of the type they required.
Indeed the Governor had requested in 1835 that immigration be altogether
suspended except for a few female domestic servants who, it was suggested
later, might be sent out in small parties in private ships. (28) To this
suggestion Elliot raised several objections because he could not acquiesce
again in an emigration exclusively composed of single women, and because a
scheme such as Governor Franklin suggested in 1837 would prevent any steps
being taken to secure proper superintendence during the voyage. (29) As a
result immigration into Van Diemen's Land was suspended, (30) and it was not
until April, 1840, that a public meeting at Hobart requested that it be
resumed. (31) The Governor agreed and established a system of immigration on
bounty, very similar to that current in New South Wales, except for minor
differences in the amounts of the bounties and the ages of the people for
whom bounties were promised. Franklin suggested that two-thirds of the land
fund of £30,000 be set aside for immigration in each subsequent year except
1841, during which he recommended the expenditure of £22,000. He expressed a
strong preference for the Bounty System; but set aside £10,000 of this sum
for emigration under the control of officers in England. (32) Franklin
promised to send home lists of immigrants for whom bounties had been
promised, and the names of the agents who were to choose them. He proposed
further that the immigrants should bind themselves to serve particular
masters in the colony for three years, and that the settlers should enter
into similar bonds to support the immigrants for three years. These
provisions, he believed, would do away with the need for a board of
examination in the colony, and to that extent would reduce expenses.
The Land Board condemned the suggestion that emigrants should be bound to
serve particular settlers. Its result in the past had always been to "make
bad masters and bad servants." Lord John Russell therefore vetoed this part
of the scheme, and prohibited its introduction or continuance in any
colonies where the Bounty System was in operation. (33) Further the Land
Board asked for power to control the bounty agents for Van Diemen's Land,
and to exercise all the powers which they desired also to exercise in the
case of New South Wales. (34) The Colonial Office freely assented to these
proposals, and once again the emigration to New South Wales and Van Diemen's
Land came under the same authority in England. (35) Henceforward, except for
minor differences in the ages of the immigrants, and the bounties promised,
the two colonies were treated as one. (36)
References:-
(1) The Government Notice of 28 October, 1835, which embodied these
provisions is printed in P.P. 1837, XLIII, 358, p164.
(2) Report of the Committee on Immigration of the Legislative Council of
New South Wales, 1837. Votes and Proceedings, 1837. Bourke to Glenelg, No.
85, 8 September, 1837. H.R.A., Ser. I. xix, p. 83. The revised regulations
were published in the New South Wales Government Gazette, No. 299, 25
September, 1837. C.O. 205/5.
(3) Report of the Committee on Immigration of the Legislative Council of
N.S.W., 1839. Votes and Proceedings. 1839. The regulations were published in
the New South Wales Government Gazette, No. 12, 3 March, 1840. C.O. 205/8.
(4) This is clear from the letters written by the Land Board during 1840.
See C.O. 386/24-26.
(5) Elliot to Stephen, 10 August, 1839. C.O. 384/54. See also Elliot's
evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Colonization
from Ireland, 1847. P.P. 1847, VI, 737; Stanley to Gipps, No. 16, 14 Oct.,
1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, pp. 544-5; Land Board to Hope, 30 Sept., 1844.
H.R.A., Ser. I, xxiv, p. 1.
(6) Select Committee on Colonization from Ireland, 1847. Q. 4421 (Elliot).
"This system worked at first unobjectionably. Almost all the orders found
their way into the hands of one person, who therefore was under almost as
effective a responsibility as if he had been a public servant. I allude to
Mr. Marshall. But since the Bounty Orders were the only means by which a
shipowner could gain the privilege of sending out emigrants, they soon came
to bear a market value; the sellers disposed of them for a certain sum of
money, and by degrees they found their way into the hand of a variety of
shipowners." See also letter from John Wilson to Lord Stanley, 24 September,
1841. C.O. 384/66. He writes of "the nefarious practices going on at present
in regard to the sale of bounty emigration orders - obtained from the
Government of New South Wales at Sydney." By 1841 the orders were worth £1
each.
(7) Land Board to R. Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58. These
references are to three letters written on 16 December, 1840. One related to
actual cases of fraud, one to the Bounty System in general, and one to
future control of the system in England.
(8) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(9) Land Board to R. Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58.
(10) Sir George Grey to Marshall, 17 February, 1837. C.O. 385/17.
(11) Grey to Marshall, 10 March, 1837. C.O. 385/17.
(12) Land Board to W. R. Lloyd, Esq., 19 August, 1840. C.O. 386/25.
(13) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58; Land Board to R.
Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58.
(14) Report of the Immigration Committee of New South Wales, 1839. Votes and
Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 1839. "It is shown that not above
one in a hundred is rejected on inspection; from which it is evident that
persons by whom the selection is made must be acting with the utmost
carefulness."
(15) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58 ; Land Board to
Stephen, 3 April, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(16) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. H.R.A, Ser. 1, xxi, p. 224;
Sydney Herald, 12 June, 1840; 22 January, 1841; 10 April, 1841. See also
Minutes of Evidence and the Reports of the Legislative Council Committee on
Immigration, passim.
(17) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(18) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O.384/63.
(19) "Even if these repeated instances of inaccuracy on the part of Mr.
Pinnock were merely proofs of carelessness, or of want of judgment, they
would be serious faults in an officer upon whom, almost alone, the
Government must rely for correct information to guide it in the conduct of
emigration to New South Wales. But when these numerous errors of statement .
are made upon a subject on which great party spirit has been excited, and
one in which, we must add, large pecuniary interests are involved in the
exclusive preference of that kind of emigration which Mr. Pinnock's
allegations have been calculated to serve, the question assumes a still
graver aspect." Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63. See
also Land Board to Stephen, 5 August, 1840. C.O. 384/59; 15 January, 1841.
C.O. 384/63.
(20) Colonial Office Minute, 16 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(21) Colonial Office Minute, 19 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(22) Stephen to Land Board, 12 February, 1841. C.O. 385/20; Russell to
Gipps, No. 198, 9 February, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, p. 220.
(23) Gipps to Russell, No. 163, 24 August, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, XXI, p.
482.
(24) Gipps to Russell, No. 177 16 September, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi. p.
512; Stephen to Land Board, 16 April 1842. C.O. 385/42.
(25) Gipps to Russell, No, 163, 24 August, 1841; Gipps to Russell, No. 178,
16 September, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, pp. 513-4.
(26) Elliot to Stephen, 10 August, 1839. C.O. 384/54. In this letter Elliot
discussed the Report of the Immigration Committee of New South Wales, 1839.
He explained the defects of the Bounty System and made suggestions as to its
improvement, some of which were incorporated in the regulations of 1841. See
also three letters from the Land Board to Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840.
C.O. 386/58; Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58.
(27) Notice dated 23 March, 1841. C.O. 386/26. The regulations were
introduced in New South Wales by a Notice in the New South Wales Government
Gazette, No. 25, 30 March, 1841. C.O. 205/9. See also No. 67 of 1841 which
contains the full text of the regulations.
(28) Minute 2 of the Legislative Council of Van Diemen's Land, 11 April,
1837. C.O. 282/11. Franklin to Glenelg, "Separate," 9 December, 1837. C.O.
280/81. Franklin to Glenelg, No. 27, 4 April, 1838. C.O. 280 /94.
(29) Elliot to Stephen, 3 January, 1839. C.O. 384/53 ; Glenelg to Franklin,
No. 4, 11 January, 1839. C.O. 408/16.
(30) Elliot to Stephen, 27 September, 1837. C.O. 386/20; Glenelg to
Franklin. No. 204, 23 October, 1837, C.O. 408/14.
(31) Franklin to Russell, No. 66, 22 May, 1840. C.O. 280 /119. Enclosure 4
is a copy of the Government Notice of 14 May, 1840, setting out the
regulations. In September, 1839, Franklin had repeated that there was a
pressing need in the colony for single women; but he accepted Glenelg's
despatch of 11 January, 1839, to mean that none would be sent. Franklin to
Normanby, No. 29, 4 September, 1839. C.O. 280/110.
(32) Franklin to Glenelg, No. 66. Franklin to Russell, No. 130, 15 October,
1840. C.O. 280/121.
(33) Land Board Circular, 6 April, 1841. C.O. 386/26. But see the Report and
Minutes of Evidence of the Committee of the Whole Council of V.D.L. on
Immigration, 8 November, 1841. C.O. 280/135. The Committee insisted that
without this condition immigrants would leave the island for the mainland
settlements. This, in fact, happened, and immigration was again suspended
between 1842 and 1848.
(34) Much of the above analysis of the position in Van Diemen's Land has
been drawn from a report, Land Board to Stephen, of 5 January, 1841. C.O.
384/63.
(35) Stephen to Land Board, 24 February, 1841. C.O. 385/20.
(36) Some idea of the relative unimportance of immigration to Van Diemen's
Land can be had from the fact that in the year ended 30 April, 1842, only
353 persons were introduced on bounty. They included 191 labourers and
artisans. The balance (162) consisted of their families. Land Board to
Stephen, 6 May, 1842. C.O. 384/70.
The following extract is Chapter VIII of R B Madgwick's book titled
"Immigration into Eastern Australia 1788-1851." which was published by
Longmans, Green & Co in 1937.
I have changed the reference numbers and their location in the chapter.
They have been placed at the end of this posting.
Regards,
Peter Mayberry
Tuggeranong ACT
THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BOUNTY SYSTEM 1835-1841
The essential feature of the Bounty System as originally suggested by
Governor Bourke was that the colonists should themselves choose emigrants in
England and bring them to the colony, receiving from the colonial Government
a bounty equal or nearly equal to the cost of the passage. From this scheme
Bourke and the colonists expected several advantages. They would import
people whose occupations fitted them for colonial life and there would no
longer be any danger of an over-supply of tradesmen for whom no demand
existed. The cost of selecting emigrants in England would disappear, for the
colonists would bear the whole cost, as well as the whole responsibility for
the selections. The expense of maintaining the immigrants after their
arrival would be avoided, for they would already be engaged to serve the
settlers who imported them. But above all there would no longer be the
danger which the London Emigration Committee had failed to avoid, of
selecting people whose characters constituted a menace to the moral welfare
of the colony.
The colonists seem to have had no clear picture of how this system was to be
implemented. Bourke realized that few of them could afford the expense of
proceeding to England to select immigrants, or of maintaining an agency
there. Fewer still would have large enough sums available to defray the cost
of carrying out the tradesmen and labourers they selected or who were
selected for them in England. At the same time, however, he had made
suggestions to improve the selection of emigrants by the Government in
England, and he believed that the newly conceived Bounty System would
supplement the labourers which the Government System introduced and would
indicate the types of person for whom the colony's need was greatest.
The first set of Bounty regulations was contained in a Government Notice
issued at Sydney in October, 1835. The bounties offered were similar to
those subsequently granted by Elliot to Government emigrants. This is not
surprising, for Elliot endeavoured to make his system subserve the interests
of the colonies; and these were presumably expressed in the regulations
governing their own immigration system. The bounties offered were £30 for a
married man and his wife, providing neither was over thirty years of age on
embarkation, and £5 for each of their children over twelve months old. £15
was allowed "for every unmarried female whose age shall not be below fifteen
nor above thirty years, who shall come out with the consent of the settler
or his agent, under the protection of the married couple, as forming part of
the family, and destined to remain with it until such female be otherwise
provided for. "A bounty of £10 was granted for every unmarried male
immigrant between eighteen and twenty-five," brought out by a settler, who
at the same time brings out an equal number of females, accompanying and
attached to a family." All the adult males were to be either mechanics or
farm servants.
On arrival in the colony the immigrants were to appear before a Board
appointed by the Governor to examine the testimonials of character which
they had to bring with them. These were to be signed by "clergymen and
respectable inhabitants" in the districts from which the immigrants came.
Where possible the Board desired to see certified copies of baptismal
registers; and by this and other means satisfy themselves as to the ages of
the immigrants. If these documents were in order, and the Board was
satisfied that the immigrants were of "good bodily health and strength, and
in all other respects likely to be useful members of their class in
society," a certificate to that effect would be granted entitling settlers
to the sums due to them.
In order to keep an effective check on the number of people introduced,
settlers had to provide the Colonial Secretary with a list of the persons
they desired to introduce, with a description of their "condition and
calling." No bounties were to be paid unless this were done and the settler
produced a permit intimating that the Government in the colony was prepared
to pay bounties on the people it described. Permission could not be given
for bounties on the wives and families of soldiers serving in New South
Wales or Van Diemen's Land, or of convicts serving sentences in either of
the two colonies. The Government Notice also set out quite clearly that on
no account would any payments be made in addition to the bounties, so that
all the expenses of collecting the immigrants and conveying them to the
colony had to be met out of the sums set out in the notice. (1) The
invitation to settlers to submit lists of the immigrants they intended to
introduce was originally to remain open until November, 1835. But it was
later extended to June, 1836, and finally made more or less permanent,
except when shortage of funds caused a suspension of assisted immigration.
The notice of October, 1835, embodied certain important principles around
which controversy raged, particularly after 1840. The vital provision was
that which gave the Board in the colony power to refuse bounties on
immigrants whom they deemed unsuited to the needs of the colonies as to age,
occupation, health and strength or fitness for colonial life. The colonists
argued that the fear of having bounties refused would prevent settlers from
introducing unsuitable immigrants. If not, the Board would still refuse
payment of bounties, and the colony would be saved the expense of their
passage. To the colonists one of the most objectionable features of the
Government System was that however bad the arrivals might be the colonists
had to pay for their introduction. The only redress was to send a complaint
home to the Government selecting officers, and hope that the mistakes would
not be repeated.
At first sight the establishment of the Examining Board seems to have
provided an effective check against attempts to evade the regulations. There
were, however, several difficulties inherent in the regulations which in
practice prevented this check from operating effectively. The officers
comprising the Board had no means of making certain that the testimonials of
character were genuine. Where immigrants could not produce copies or
extracts from parish registers, the Board had to rely on their ability to
judge the ages of the arrivals, at no time an easy thing to do. There was no
effective method of discovering whether the applicant for bounty was
accustomed to work at the trade or occupation he professed. Moreover, it was
doubtful whether the bounties offered were great enough to be attractive to
settlers, who were averse to bearing any part of the expense of introducing
servants. Allied to this last difficulty was the question of securing a
sufficiently large number of people between the ages set out in the
regulations.
These were difficulties inherent in the regulations. Other problems
developed later with regard to the interpretation and administration of the
provisions regarding unmarried men and women. Had the system operated as its
sponsors hoped these would never have arisen; but it proved unworkable in
its purest form. Settlers had neither the money nor the opportunity to
arrange for the introduction of the servants they required, and the Bounty
System soon fell into the hands of shipowners and speculators. But before
considering these difficulties of administration it is necessary to trace
very briefly the major changes that took place in the regulations
themselves, some of which occurred in response to immediate practical
problems.
The number of applications for bounty permits exceeded the expectation of
the most optimistic observers; but complaints soon arose about the cost of
the selection and despatch of the emigrants. By 1837 the difficulty of
filling the ships had threatened seriously to reduce the number of bounty
emigrants at a time when the need for labour was becoming more intense. The
fear persisted that bounty agents might be tempted to fill their ships with
undesirables if the scope of their selections were unduly restricted. The
colonists were faced with the same problem which Elliot faced in his
administration of the Government System. A sufficient number of young
married couples was not to be found if strict attention were paid to the
character and occupations of the applicants. Rather than agree to lowering
their standards of physical and moral quality the Immigration Committee of
1837 recommended that the ages be extended and the bounties increased.
Accordingly the age was raised to forty years in the case of married men,
without reference to the age of their wives, and half bounties were allowed
to men and women over forty who accompanied their families to the colony,
provided that the latter were eligible immigrants and able to support their
parents in the colony. At the same time a new scale of bounties was fixed as
follows :-
Man and wife, without family - £36
Each unmarried male - £18
Each unmarried female - £18
Children from 7 to 14 years - £10
Children from 1 to 7 years - £5
Another recommendation of the 1837 Committee is interesting because of its
bearing on future controversies, although it was vetoed by the Governor. The
Committee pointed out that the disparity between the sexes had been greatly
exaggerated. The most pressing need in the colony was for unmarried men
capable of performing general farm labour. They therefore proposed that the
immigration should in future be made up of three-eighths unmarried men, two-
eighths unmarried women, and three-eighths married mechanics and farm
servants. This recommendation would have required a modification of the
bounty regulations to enable the shippers to carryout a greater number of
single men than single women. Bourke refused his assent because he believed
that in the long run the disproportion of the sexes would prove more
detrimental to the colony than the shortage of unmarried farm labourers and
house servants. This attitude on the part of the Committee illustrates very
clearly the inconsistency of the colonists and their willingness to
sacrifice principle to expediency in the conduct of their own immigration
policy. Later, when shipowners attempted to send out single men
unaccompanied by equal numbers of single women, the Board in the colony
insisted on the letter of the regulations and refused to allow payment of
bounties. But by then control over the Bounty System had to a large extent
been taken out of their hands and vested in the Land and Emigration
Commissioners. (2)
Further increases in the cost of the Bounty System were made following the
report of the Immigration Committee of 1839. These aimed at securing a more
efficient operation of the service by increasing the gratuities to surgeons-
and officers of the immigrant ships and by allowing a gratuity to teachers
appointed for the voyage and to hospital assistants and overseers. The
Committee hoped by these means to call forth greater care from the officers
who alone could prevent immorality during the voyage, and in whose hands lay
the health and safety of the passengers. Without these innovations, the
Committee foresaw a recurrence of scenes of immorality and disorder which in
the past had exercised a most undesirable influence on the characters of the
immigrants. The effect of the increases was to raise the cost of bounty
immigration to the colonial Government by about thirty shillings per head.
These amendments were introduced by a Government Notice, dated 3rd March,
1840. At the same time further important changes were made to encourage the
introduction of useful mechanics and agricultural labourers. The bounty for
married couples was increased to £38 and their ages extended to forty. The
regulations covering single men and women were retained, but the bounties
were increased to £19, except for women over fifteen who were accompanying
their parents. For them the bounty was to be £15. No alteration was made in
the bounties for children, and it was made clear that on no account would
children under fifteen be received as immigrants unless they were
accompanying their parents. These changes were important for several
reasons, although they do not indicate any alteration in the principles on
which the system was based. By far the most important effect of the
persistent increases in the rates of bounty was the inducement they offered
for speculators in England to enter the business of emigration. This proved
in the long run to be the most pernicious feature of the whole system, for
it caused widespread abuse and repeated attempts by unscrupulous shipowners
to evade the regulations.
The Committee of 1839 were not unmindful of the abuses that had already
occurred, and realised that the increased bounties would offer a greater
temptation for similar abuses in the future. The regulations of March, 1840,
therefore laid down strict conditions which shipowners had to fulfil before
they received the bounty from the Examining Board. In addition to the
certificates covering the characters of the immigrants, the Board
henceforward required a certificate that the provisions and accommodation
provided during the voyage were in accordance with those laid down in the
Passengers Act, and that the comfort of the immigrants had been
conscientiously safeguarded. The Board was to decide also respecting the
conduct of the surgeon and officers of the ship and retained the right to
withhold their gratuities if there were any evidence of their slackness or
misconduct. The shippers were to be prevented from discharging their
passengers immediately on arrival in the colony, as they had done in the
past. This practice had produced serious consequences on the characters of
the single women who had been cast defenceless into a society where moral
standards were in many respects deplorably low. Henceforward the shipper was
required to provide the immigrants with suitable accommodation on shore or
to allow them to remain on the ship for a period not exceeding ten days
after their arrival at their destination. During that period he was to
supply them with rations equivalent to those they had received during the
voyage. Finally, in order to leave no loophole at all through which abuses
might creep into the conduct of the system, the shippers were specifically
warned that the regulations would be rigidly construed. They therefore
risked the loss of bounty if they endeavoured to introduce immigrants whose
ages, occupations or characters did not bring them under the provisions of
the Notice. Henceforward the Board was determined to insist on the letter as
well as the spirit of the regulations. (3)
It has been necessary to discuss the changes in the bounty regulations in
some detail because they explain the type of people the colonists desired to
introduce. They were designed to remove abuses that had already crept into
the working of the system and to prevent others in the future. A study of
the motives behind the gradual tightening up of the regulations should
therefore provide some indication of the quality of the bounty immigrants
between 1835 and 1840.
The Notice of March, 1840, altered the regulations covering the ages of
immigrants and the bounties that would be allowed on their introduction.
They did not seriously affect the general basis of the Bounty System. As yet
the Land Board in England exercised practically no control over bounty
emigration (4) except through their agents at the outports, otherwise the
whole control lay with the colonies, and continued to do so until 1841 when
the Land Board interfered to prevent fraud and to secure a more satisfactory
selection of immigrants.
The regulations were never effective, despite the care bestowed on them by
the colonists. The system gradually degenerated into a commercial
speculation controlled by British shipowners, of whom John Marshall was the
most important. At no time between 1835 and 1840 was the system conducted as
its founders had hoped. The distance of the colony from the United Kingdom
prevented the selection of immigrants by the colonists. Accordingly the
bounty permits were transferred to English shipowners who became the agents
of the original holders. It was an easy step from this to the establishment
in Sydney of agents representing shipping interests in England. (5) Once
this practice became common it was no longer necessary for shippers to
continue the fiction that they acted for the colonists. Their agents applied
for, and were granted permits in their own names, and the shippers
introduced any immigrants their agents might choose in England. The wishes
of individual settlers, in whose interest the Bounty System had originally
been established, were no longer considered. While the business was retained
by a few shippers this divergence from the principles of the system did not
produce very serious results. (6) The number of ships dispatched to the
colonies was not great and the Board was quite capable within limits of
exercising a vigilant control over them. There was in fact no great
temptation for the bounty agents in England to defraud the Government. While
the Government System was also in full operation the number of bounty
immigrants was relatively small, and the ships could be filled without any
difficulty. As the bounties were gradually increased and the age limits
extended, more shippers found the returns attractive and entered into the
business to compete with the established firms. It was inevitable in these
circumstances that less care should be given to the selections, for with
increased competition profits became gradually smaller. Similarly the ships
were no longer as carefully selected, or as well fitted out as they had
been, and in several instances the owners endangered the lives of the
emigrants by loading every available space with cargo for sale in the
colony. But perhaps the most serious charge levelled at the bounty agents in
England was that they knowingly deceived the people they were persuading to
emigrate. (7) The only check to abuse and misrepresentation rested with the
Board in the colony, who were both unable and unwilling to exercise it.
Their chief concern was to prevent paying bounties on people who were
ineligible by the regulations. As a result there was no check on the
proceedings of the shipowners in England. (8) They changed their
arrangements at will, thereby ruining people who had taken all the necessary
steps to settle their affairs in England. They took no effective steps to
secure discipline during the voyage. And they published false reports on the
progress of emigration and the state of the colonies. (9) Even John
Marshall, with all his experience as Agent to the London Emigration
Committee, misrepresented his position in England and made statements, which
he knew to be false, about the inducements offered by the colony to poor
emigrants. The Colonial Office drew his attention to the erroneous
impression he was creating and asked him to conduct his enterprise more
strictly in accordance with the true facts of the position. (10) When he
failed to do so, the Colonial Office was powerless. (11) Marshall continued
to describe himself as the Agent of the Colonial Government, and, in other
ways also, deceived the people with whom he hoped to fill his ships. (12)
The colonists argued that from their point of view what happened in England
was of minor importance, so long as they retained power to prevent the
introduction of undesirable immigrants at the public expense. (13) They
claimed, moreover, that the regulations operated satisfactorily. Up to 1839
the Board had only disallowed bounties on about one per cent of the
arrivals. (14)
This would have been an unanswerable argument if the Examining Board had
been in a position to check the statements made by the immigrants and the
documents they produced to support them. In practice they were unable to do
so. Shipowners provided ineligible applicants with forged references of age,
occupation and character, (15) and very often these were sufficient to
satisfy the Board. Suspicion was only likely to be aroused if the age of the
applicant was obviously different from that set down in his certificate.
Even then the Board had no means of disproving the statement of the
immigrant, for birth certificates or copies from baptismal registers were
not compulsory by the regulations, and could often not have been secured if
the regulations had required them. In some cases the clergymen or
magistrates who gave the references had no personal knowledge of the
applicants. In other cases undesirable inhabitants of a village or district
in England were provided with the necessary documents by officials or
magistrates who desired nothing more than their departure from England. Only
rarely could the Examining Board detect the imposition. They had no
knowledge of the people who signed the certificates, and it was obviously
impossible to send to England to have the signatures verified. The
examination in the colony was therefore perfunctory, and indecisive. Numbers
of people probably escaped detection who were in no sense the type specified
in the colonial regulations.
Nevertheless, criticism of the bounty immigrants was extremely rare before
1841. From time to time comments were made in the colony about the
unsatisfactory quality of some of the arrivals, particularly the single
women. Marshall was accused of sacrificing the interests of the colony for
his own profit, and of filling his ships with paupers because they were more
easily collected. (16) Criticism was, however, subordinated to the task of
convincing the home Government that the Bounty System was both necessary and
desirable. Even when they took exception to bounty immigrants the colonists
were careful to point out that they still preferred their own system to that
run by the Government in London. Official opinion also was always staunchly
in favour of the Bounty System, and it was unusual for the reports of the
Immigration Agent or the Immigration Committee to attack the conduct of the
bounty agents or the type of people the system introduced. This was
particularly true of the reports of James Pinnock, who became Agent for
Immigration at Sydney in 1837.
If it were possible to rely on Pinnock's reports, there would be no doubt
that the bounty immigrants were thoroughly desirable additions to the
population. He had every opportunity of examining the importations, for he
was Chairman of the Examining Board, and visited all the immigrant ships as
they arrived. His reports were the main source of information to which the
colonists had access. He was one of the chief witnesses before the various
Immigration Committees, whose reports were always coloured by his evidence.
In short he was in a position to sway public opinion in the colony on
questions relating to immigration; and he never missed an opportunity of
stressing the merits of the Bounty System. It has already been shown that
Pinnock had a thorough knowledge of emigration from the English end, for he
had been in turn a clerk in the Colonial Office, a link between the Office
and the London Emigration Committee, and the Colonial Emigration Agent at
London. Presumably, therefore, he could speak with authority, for he was
fully cognizant of the methods used by Marshall and the other bounty agents.
Unfortunately the bitterness with which he attacked the Government System
was shown to have been not disinterested. He was accused by the Land Board
of knowingly misrepresenting facts. They asserted that Pinnock was known to
be a "warm partisan of the principal importer of people on Bounty," and that
he "acted rather like (Marshall's) agent than a paid and responsible servant
of the public." (17) They traced this close connection with Marshall back to
the period when Pinnock was working in collaboration with the London
Emigration Committee. In the colony Pinnock was accused of writing his
reports only after close collaboration with Marshall's agent. (18) The Land
Board produced evidence to prove that he was so biased in favour of the
Bounty System that he was incapable of providing any useful information on
its operation. They did not accuse him of corruption but insinuated that his
opinions were dictated by his private interests. (19) Whether or not Pinnock
stood to gain by his support of Marshall and the Bounty System cannot be
determined. James Stephen admitted that the close connection between Pinnock
and Marshall was well known to him. This caused him to see "some appearance
of a malevolent intention in Mr. Pinnock's mis-statement." (20) On another
occasion Stephen's minute described Pinnock as a man of " light and unstable
character on whose good conduct in a situation such as that he now fills, it
was, I think, not reasonable to calculate." In this minute, however, Stephen
was careful not to impute dishonest intention to Pinnock ; and suggested
that he might perhaps be given some other appointment in the colony. (21)
Instructions to remove Pinnock from his position were sent to New South
Wales in February, 1841, (22) and caused "a considerable sensation in the
colony" where he was "generally considered a useful and trustworthy servant
of the Public." (23) Pinnock's answer to these charges of carelessness,
inaccuracy and dishonesty was not impressive, and his case was not
strengthened by the counter charge he levelled at the members of the Land
Board and particularly at Elliot. (24) He was appointed Deputy Registrar at
Port Phillip and his place in Sydney was taken by Francis Merewether against
whom no such charges were ever made. (25)
It has been necessary to treat Pinnock's dismissal in some detail for
obvious reasons. Whether the falsity of his reports was due to carelessness
or to conscious misrepresentation arising out of his personal interest in
the Bounty System, the fact remains that all the evidence in favour of the
bounty immigrants becomes at once suspect. If he was as dishonest as the
Land Board and the Colonial Office feared him to be, he was perhaps not
above passing immigrants who were ineligible for assistance. In such
circumstances the fact that so few bounties were refused is no indication at
all of the desirability of the immigration. One hesitates to impute such
questionable methods to a man who was widely respected in the colony;
particularly when the Governor, the Legislative Council and the colonists as
a whole agreed that Pinnock's support of the Bounty System was justified by
the type of people it introduced. At the same time Pinnock may have regarded
minor breaches of the regulations, and possibly even major breaches, very
leniently in the hope that lack of criticism of the system would induce the
home Government to support it in preference to its alternative. Taken in
conjunction with the almost insuperable difficulties which faced the
Examining Board in the colony, Pinnock's pronounced bias for the Bounty
System strengthens the case made out against it by the Land Board and the
Colonial Office.
Thus in England the incentive towards quick profits gave rise to fraud and
misrepresentation and the choice of people who were unfitted by age,
occupation or character for the Government bounty. In the colony the
inability of Pinnock to clear himself from charges of negligence or
dishonesty helped to throw the Bounty System into disrepute. If the
Government System operated badly, there remains no reason for supposing that
the Bounty System was in any sense its superior in the type of people it
introduced. In practice, the System was uncontrolled; the check in England
on the operation of the Government System did not apply to it, and the
colonial machinery had broken down. Obviously other measures were necessary
if the colonial funds were to be spent wisely.
These were provided by the new regulations of January, 1841, which for the
first time were issued from London. They aimed at preventing abuses in
England while still leaving the ultimate control of bounty immigration in
the hands of the colonists. Throughout 1839 and 1840 the prevalence of
irregularities in the selection of emigrants and during the voyage to the
colonies had convinced the Colonial Office that some control was necessary
in England as well as in New South Wales. (26)
Attempts had been made by the Government agents at the outports to
counteract exaggeration and falsehood by the issue of correct information
and statistics about the colonies and the sickness and mortality that
occurred during the voyage in bounty ships as well as in those dispatched by
the Government. These attempts, however, had not succeeded in preventing
speculators from claiming authority which they did not possess, or from
acting in a most unscrupulous manner towards the poor and ignorant people
with whom they filled their ships. The failure was due very largely to the
invidious position in which the Land Board was placed. They had in fact no
authority over the activities of the bounty agents, who were responsible
solely to the Board in the colony, and for this reason their officers were
unable to remove the false impressions created by the agents of private
speculators.
The Land Board therefore asked for power to demand from bounty agents lists
of the bounty orders they held, lists of the ships they proposed to
dispatch, information regarding the districts from which they proposed to
choose emigrants, and the ports from which the ships were to sail. They
requested power also to demand the withdrawal of false or misleading
publications about the colonies, and asked that nothing should in future be
published before it had received their approval. The Board pointed out to
the Secretary of State that these precautions would in no sense destroy the
essential nature of the Bounty System. The Board would provide the shipper
with a certificate that he had committed no fraud or misrepresentation in
the selection of the immigrants. It would state that as far as the Board
could tell, the emigrants described in the lists were in fact those for whom
bounties would be claimed, and those covered by the documents which the
bounty agents proposed to present to the Examining Board in the colony. By
these means the Land Board hoped to prevent forged references and
misstatements as to age and occupation, and to put an end to the
questionable activities of the bounty agents. The Land Board would pass no
judgment on the desirability of the emigrants, nor would they attempt to
decide whether or not the regulations were being infringed. These would
still be tasks for the Board in the colony; but it was hoped that the
certificates of the Land Board would provide information which would help
the colonial Board to detect impositions and attempts at fraud. The Land
Board did not propose to control the regulations covering the number or type
of people for whose introduction bounties would be paid. This also would
remain entirely in the hands of the colonial authorities.
These suggestions received the ready consent of Lord John Russell and in
January, 1841, a notice appeared in the Royal Gazette intimating that
henceforward the Board's certificate must be secured by all persons desirous
of claiming bounties on emigrants dispatched to New South Wales or Van
Diemen's Land. The details of the scheme were contained in a notice issued
by the Land Board in March, 1841. (27) Every care was to be taken to check
the ages of the emigrants by demanding birth certificates or copies from the
registry of baptisms. A close control was to be exercised over all
publications issued by bounty agents. The ships were to be first class at
Lloyd's and the officers of the Land Board were to have the right to order a
survey if they were not satisfied of their seaworthiness. Instructions were
also issued to cover the fittings of the ship, the qualifications of the
surgeons, and all other matters relevant to the comfort and safety of the
passengers. The forms of certificate to be used were appended to the notice.
These were to be filled in and returned to the Land Board where they would
be checked, and returned with a covering certificate to that effect, if no
frauds were detected in them. These certificates were then to be presented
to the Board's agent at the port of embarkation whose duty it was to see
that the persons presenting themselves corresponded with the descriptions
contained in the certificates. On being satisfied of their genuineness, he
also provided the shipper with a certificate to that effect. Where it became
necessary through the default of applicants or for any other reason, for the
agent to fill his ship quickly, and where therefore it was impossible for
him to refer the certificates to the Land Board, the officer of the Board
was given power to issue a special certificate to the effect that he had
made the necessary inspection of the certificates, and had found them in
order.
The objects of the new regulations were set out in section eighteen, as were
the limits to the powers assumed by the Land Board. "An explanation may be
useful on one point. The signature of the Commissioners' Secretary will
attest the fact that the emigrants' certificates appear proper as documents;
and that there is no apparent reason to doubt the genuineness of the
signature or the truth of the description. Into these circumstances,
therefore, inquiry will be made if necessary. The signature of the
Commissioners' Agent will testify the apparent identity of the parties. But
their personal fitness, or the question whether or not they come properly
within the kind of emigrants for whom bounty is promised, will be left, as
at present, exclusively to the decision of the proper Board in the Colony."
Nevertheless, however satisfactory the colonial Board might find the
arrivals, no bounties were to be paid unless the claimant produced the
appropriate certificates from the Land Board and their agents.
These regulations were also to apply to Van Diemen's Land which, in general,
had avoided the abuses that had crept into the system as it applied to New
South Wales. There had been no assisted immigration to that colony after
1837 and the Bounty System had never been fully adopted. There were several
cogent reasons for this. The colonial revenues were not as buoyant as they
were in New South Wales and during these four years the colonists did not
feel justified in laying out what little money they had on the introduction
of immigrants. They might have adopted a different attitude if the
immigrants who had arrived during the previous years had come up to their
expectations. But, instead, shiploads of single women had arrived whose
characters often compared unfavourably with those of the convicts, and men
who seemed unable or unwilling to earn a living by their labour in the
colony. The failure of the immigration of labourers and tradesmen was due in
large measure to the high wages ruling in the Port Phillip district and in
South Australia, while in Van Diemen's Land the large number of convicts
kept wages fairly low. Accordingly the colony became no more than "a place
of transit for emigrant labourers" who proceeded to the mainland at the
first opportunity, leaving their wives and families in some cases to be
supported by the Government in Hobart or Launceston.
In these circumstances it was inevitable that the colonists should have
received with apathy or even opposition, all suggestions for a modified
system aimed at providing them with labourers of the type they required.
Indeed the Governor had requested in 1835 that immigration be altogether
suspended except for a few female domestic servants who, it was suggested
later, might be sent out in small parties in private ships. (28) To this
suggestion Elliot raised several objections because he could not acquiesce
again in an emigration exclusively composed of single women, and because a
scheme such as Governor Franklin suggested in 1837 would prevent any steps
being taken to secure proper superintendence during the voyage. (29) As a
result immigration into Van Diemen's Land was suspended, (30) and it was not
until April, 1840, that a public meeting at Hobart requested that it be
resumed. (31) The Governor agreed and established a system of immigration on
bounty, very similar to that current in New South Wales, except for minor
differences in the amounts of the bounties and the ages of the people for
whom bounties were promised. Franklin suggested that two-thirds of the land
fund of £30,000 be set aside for immigration in each subsequent year except
1841, during which he recommended the expenditure of £22,000. He expressed a
strong preference for the Bounty System; but set aside £10,000 of this sum
for emigration under the control of officers in England. (32) Franklin
promised to send home lists of immigrants for whom bounties had been
promised, and the names of the agents who were to choose them. He proposed
further that the immigrants should bind themselves to serve particular
masters in the colony for three years, and that the settlers should enter
into similar bonds to support the immigrants for three years. These
provisions, he believed, would do away with the need for a board of
examination in the colony, and to that extent would reduce expenses.
The Land Board condemned the suggestion that emigrants should be bound to
serve particular settlers. Its result in the past had always been to "make
bad masters and bad servants." Lord John Russell therefore vetoed this part
of the scheme, and prohibited its introduction or continuance in any
colonies where the Bounty System was in operation. (33) Further the Land
Board asked for power to control the bounty agents for Van Diemen's Land,
and to exercise all the powers which they desired also to exercise in the
case of New South Wales. (34) The Colonial Office freely assented to these
proposals, and once again the emigration to New South Wales and Van Diemen's
Land came under the same authority in England. (35) Henceforward, except for
minor differences in the ages of the immigrants, and the bounties promised,
the two colonies were treated as one. (36)
References:-
(1) The Government Notice of 28 October, 1835, which embodied these
provisions is printed in P.P. 1837, XLIII, 358, p164.
(2) Report of the Committee on Immigration of the Legislative Council of
New South Wales, 1837. Votes and Proceedings, 1837. Bourke to Glenelg, No.
85, 8 September, 1837. H.R.A., Ser. I. xix, p. 83. The revised regulations
were published in the New South Wales Government Gazette, No. 299, 25
September, 1837. C.O. 205/5.
(3) Report of the Committee on Immigration of the Legislative Council of
N.S.W., 1839. Votes and Proceedings. 1839. The regulations were published in
the New South Wales Government Gazette, No. 12, 3 March, 1840. C.O. 205/8.
(4) This is clear from the letters written by the Land Board during 1840.
See C.O. 386/24-26.
(5) Elliot to Stephen, 10 August, 1839. C.O. 384/54. See also Elliot's
evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Colonization
from Ireland, 1847. P.P. 1847, VI, 737; Stanley to Gipps, No. 16, 14 Oct.,
1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, pp. 544-5; Land Board to Hope, 30 Sept., 1844.
H.R.A., Ser. I, xxiv, p. 1.
(6) Select Committee on Colonization from Ireland, 1847. Q. 4421 (Elliot).
"This system worked at first unobjectionably. Almost all the orders found
their way into the hands of one person, who therefore was under almost as
effective a responsibility as if he had been a public servant. I allude to
Mr. Marshall. But since the Bounty Orders were the only means by which a
shipowner could gain the privilege of sending out emigrants, they soon came
to bear a market value; the sellers disposed of them for a certain sum of
money, and by degrees they found their way into the hand of a variety of
shipowners." See also letter from John Wilson to Lord Stanley, 24 September,
1841. C.O. 384/66. He writes of "the nefarious practices going on at present
in regard to the sale of bounty emigration orders - obtained from the
Government of New South Wales at Sydney." By 1841 the orders were worth £1
each.
(7) Land Board to R. Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58. These
references are to three letters written on 16 December, 1840. One related to
actual cases of fraud, one to the Bounty System in general, and one to
future control of the system in England.
(8) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(9) Land Board to R. Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58.
(10) Sir George Grey to Marshall, 17 February, 1837. C.O. 385/17.
(11) Grey to Marshall, 10 March, 1837. C.O. 385/17.
(12) Land Board to W. R. Lloyd, Esq., 19 August, 1840. C.O. 386/25.
(13) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58; Land Board to R.
Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840. C.O. 386/58.
(14) Report of the Immigration Committee of New South Wales, 1839. Votes and
Proceedings of the Legislative Council, 1839. "It is shown that not above
one in a hundred is rejected on inspection; from which it is evident that
persons by whom the selection is made must be acting with the utmost
carefulness."
(15) Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58 ; Land Board to
Stephen, 3 April, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(16) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. H.R.A, Ser. 1, xxi, p. 224;
Sydney Herald, 12 June, 1840; 22 January, 1841; 10 April, 1841. See also
Minutes of Evidence and the Reports of the Legislative Council Committee on
Immigration, passim.
(17) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(18) Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O.384/63.
(19) "Even if these repeated instances of inaccuracy on the part of Mr.
Pinnock were merely proofs of carelessness, or of want of judgment, they
would be serious faults in an officer upon whom, almost alone, the
Government must rely for correct information to guide it in the conduct of
emigration to New South Wales. But when these numerous errors of statement .
are made upon a subject on which great party spirit has been excited, and
one in which, we must add, large pecuniary interests are involved in the
exclusive preference of that kind of emigration which Mr. Pinnock's
allegations have been calculated to serve, the question assumes a still
graver aspect." Land Board to Stephen, 18 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63. See
also Land Board to Stephen, 5 August, 1840. C.O. 384/59; 15 January, 1841.
C.O. 384/63.
(20) Colonial Office Minute, 16 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(21) Colonial Office Minute, 19 January, 1841. C.O. 384/63.
(22) Stephen to Land Board, 12 February, 1841. C.O. 385/20; Russell to
Gipps, No. 198, 9 February, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, p. 220.
(23) Gipps to Russell, No. 163, 24 August, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, XXI, p.
482.
(24) Gipps to Russell, No. 177 16 September, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi. p.
512; Stephen to Land Board, 16 April 1842. C.O. 385/42.
(25) Gipps to Russell, No, 163, 24 August, 1841; Gipps to Russell, No. 178,
16 September, 1841. H.R.A., Ser. I, xxi, pp. 513-4.
(26) Elliot to Stephen, 10 August, 1839. C.O. 384/54. In this letter Elliot
discussed the Report of the Immigration Committee of New South Wales, 1839.
He explained the defects of the Bounty System and made suggestions as to its
improvement, some of which were incorporated in the regulations of 1841. See
also three letters from the Land Board to Vernon Smith, 16 December, 1840.
C.O. 386/58; Land Board to Stephen, 5 January, 1841. C.O. 386/58.
(27) Notice dated 23 March, 1841. C.O. 386/26. The regulations were
introduced in New South Wales by a Notice in the New South Wales Government
Gazette, No. 25, 30 March, 1841. C.O. 205/9. See also No. 67 of 1841 which
contains the full text of the regulations.
(28) Minute 2 of the Legislative Council of Van Diemen's Land, 11 April,
1837. C.O. 282/11. Franklin to Glenelg, "Separate," 9 December, 1837. C.O.
280/81. Franklin to Glenelg, No. 27, 4 April, 1838. C.O. 280 /94.
(29) Elliot to Stephen, 3 January, 1839. C.O. 384/53 ; Glenelg to Franklin,
No. 4, 11 January, 1839. C.O. 408/16.
(30) Elliot to Stephen, 27 September, 1837. C.O. 386/20; Glenelg to
Franklin. No. 204, 23 October, 1837, C.O. 408/14.
(31) Franklin to Russell, No. 66, 22 May, 1840. C.O. 280 /119. Enclosure 4
is a copy of the Government Notice of 14 May, 1840, setting out the
regulations. In September, 1839, Franklin had repeated that there was a
pressing need in the colony for single women; but he accepted Glenelg's
despatch of 11 January, 1839, to mean that none would be sent. Franklin to
Normanby, No. 29, 4 September, 1839. C.O. 280/110.
(32) Franklin to Glenelg, No. 66. Franklin to Russell, No. 130, 15 October,
1840. C.O. 280/121.
(33) Land Board Circular, 6 April, 1841. C.O. 386/26. But see the Report and
Minutes of Evidence of the Committee of the Whole Council of V.D.L. on
Immigration, 8 November, 1841. C.O. 280/135. The Committee insisted that
without this condition immigrants would leave the island for the mainland
settlements. This, in fact, happened, and immigration was again suspended
between 1842 and 1848.
(34) Much of the above analysis of the position in Van Diemen's Land has
been drawn from a report, Land Board to Stephen, of 5 January, 1841. C.O.
384/63.
(35) Stephen to Land Board, 24 February, 1841. C.O. 385/20.
(36) Some idea of the relative unimportance of immigration to Van Diemen's
Land can be had from the fact that in the year ended 30 April, 1842, only
353 persons were introduced on bounty. They included 191 labourers and
artisans. The balance (162) consisted of their families. Land Board to
Stephen, 6 May, 1842. C.O. 384/70.