Archives Office of Tasmania GOVERNOR's OFFICE

Home , Charles Du Cane, Dormant commission, Governor of Queensland, Governor of Tasmania, Harry Barron, Opposition (Tasmania)

Archives Office of Tasmania

GUIDE TO THE

PUBLIC RECORDS OF TASMANIA

SECTION TWO

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

P.R. Eldershaw

HOBART

ARCHIVES OFFICE OF TASMANIA

1958

(Reprinted 2000)

Other Guides in this series

Section One, Colonial Secretary’s Office

Section Three, Convict Department

Section Four, Records Relating to Free Immigration

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... I

THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ...... I NOTE ON TRANSFERS...... XXXIX PART 1 – DESPATCHES, 1818-1932 ...... 1

A. - DESPATCHES RECEIVED...... 4 B. - DESPATCHES SENT ...... 13 PART 2 - CORRESPONDENCE RECORDS, 1820-1932...... 19

A. - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED...... 21 B. CORRESPONDENCE SENT ...... 26 PART 3 - MISCELLANEOUS SERIES, 1816-1933 ...... 29

APPENDIX A ...... 32

SUCCESSION OF GOVERNORS ETC,...... 32 APPENDIX B ...... 34

SUCCESSION OF PRIVATE SECRETARIES...... 34 APPENDIX C ...... 36

SUCCESSION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE ...... 36 APPENDIX D ...... 37

SUCCESSION OF LAUNCESTON COMMANDANTS ...... 37 APPENDIX E ...... 38

LOCATION OF COPIES OF DESPATCHES RECEIVED AND SENT ...... 38 i. Public Record Office, London...... 38 ii. Historical Records of Australia, Series III...... 39 iii. Mitchell Library, Sydney...... 41 APPENDIX F...... 44

CONVERSION TABLE OF OLD CLASSIFICATION NUMBERS TO NEW ...... 44

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

INTRODUCTION

The Governor's Office

Distance, and its attendant delay in communication was a powerful factor in shaping the position of the man on the spot in the formative years of Australian colonial history; the discretion and authority of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land was perhaps greater because of this distance (first between England and Australia, secondly between Sydney and Hobart) than it would have been if this Colony had been closer to the sources of power. When he had to expect delays of twelve months (in the case of London) or four months (in the case of Sydney) in receiving replies to requests for instructions, the Governor was forced to rely on his own discretion, and to hope that his decisions would eventually meet with approval. In any case, a decision once made, whether it is subsequently fully approved or not, gains weight as a fait accompli the longer it has currency.

In an undated, unsigned memorandum, originating in the Colonial Office probably in 1803, certain suggestions were made for the scope of the powers to be granted to the Lieutenant- Governor of the proposed settlement at Port Phillip, which Collins was to decide to abandon in favour of the Derwent. The whole establishment, civil and military was to be under his authority: he should be given power to make regulations for the good of the settlement: it should be laid down how far he should be allowed to charter ships, and whether he should correspond direct with London or through the Governor-in-Chief.1

The impulse to settle the island sprang from a desire simply to extend the limits of New South Wales in order to make effective the claim to British sovereignty in the face of probable French pretensions, and there was never any question of the establishment of a separate colony; from the outset it was intended that the new settlement should be entirely subordinate to New South Wales.2 The fact that Bowen with his Commission as Commandant from Governor King, was superseded by Collins, with his Royal Commission and Instructions as Governor, was a fortuitous result of the latter's dissatisfaction with Port Phillip, and did not affect the status of the outstation in any formal way. Nevertheless, the higher rank and position of Collins no doubt did have its effect in initiating the tendency towards independence from New South Wales achieved twenty-one years later.

Collins's Commission appointed him Lieutenant-Governor and charged him to receive instructions both from the Crown and the Governor of New South Wales. In the event of vacancies he was empowered to make appointments until the Royal pleasure was known, and on his death or absence, the command would devolve on the senior military officer. He was directed to make returns to the Secretary of State to the Treasury, as well as to the

1 “Suggestions for Instructions for Lieutenant Governor.” Historical Records of Australia, Series III, vol. I, p.3. 2 Hobart-King, 14 Feb. 1803, No.1. H.R.A., I, iv, 8.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Governor; in several instances his Instructions mentioned the alternative of orders either direct from the Secretary of State or from the Governor.3

The channels of communication, in these early years, were not strictly laid down. Governor Hunter, in August, 1798 deplored the fact that the officer-in-charge at Norfolk Island, Captain Townson, should have written direct to the Secretary of State rather than through him.4 Norfolk Island was then an out-station of New South Wales, in much the same position as Van Diemen's Land was to be until 1825. The Secretary of State’s ruling was that, while it was the duty of the officer-in-charge of a subordinate settlement to communicate through the Governor-in-Chief, it was also his duty to report to England whenever opportunity should be offered.5 The precedent was noted, and became practice.6 Although Collins’s Instructions were silent on the matter, in 1805 he was informed that all his despatches were to be addressed to the Governor-in-Chief, and that it would be unnecessary for him to correspond with the Secretary of State except insofar as he was to send him copies of his correspondence with Sydney.7 However it appears that it was not until the end of his period that Collins was informed, through Macquarie, of these instructions,8 for he wrote despatches to London throughout the whole of his period, and 9 was surprised and discomforted at never receiving a reply. He explained to the Secretary of State in 1808, after the deposition of Bligh, that he conceived it his duty to write direct instead of through the “regular Channel”,10 and it may be that after that date his persistence in writing direct to London is to be explained by his knowledge of the instability and temporary nature of the New South Wales Government, There is a record of only two despatches from England to Collins in Van Diemen’s Land, and neither was from the Secretary of State.11

In Governor King’s Instructions to Paterson, however, there was mention of the possibility of his receiving instructions direct from England;12 and in any case, his position as Commandant at Port Dalrymple was different from Collins’s; he was Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales and, after the deposition of Bligh, he had a right and a duty to communicate direct to the Secretary of State.13

The progress of settlement and Macquarie’s authoritarian attitude towards all subordinates led to a stricter observance of the specified channels; Gordon, Commandant at Port Dalrymple from 1810, his successor, Ritchie, from 1812, and Murray, commandant at

3 Hobart-Collins, 7 Feb. 1803, No.1. Loc. cit., p.10. 4 Hunter-Portland, 20 Aug. 1798, No. 36. H.R.A. I, ii, 199. 5 Portland-Hunter, 5 Nov. 1799. Ibid., I ii, 391. 6 P.G.King’s Instructions to Foveaux, 27 June 1800. Ibid., I ii, 519. 7 Castlereagh-Bligh, 20 Nov. 1805, Ibid., I iv, 17. 8 Castlereagh-Macquarie, 14 May 1809, Ibid., Ill, vii, 84. Macquarie-Castlereagh, 30 Apr. 1810. Ibid., I, vii, 253. 9 Collins-Hobart, 6 Aug. 1804. 20 Feb. 1805; Collins-King, 28 Sep. 1805; Collins-Castlereagh, 17 June 1806. Ibid., III, i, 275, 310, 328, 363. 10 Collins-Castlereagh, 20 Apr. 1808. Ibid., III, i, 398. 11 Barrow-Collins, 11, 20 June 1808. Ibid., III, i, 402. 12 King’s Instructions to Paterson, 1 June 1804. Ibid., III, i, 588. 13 Paterson-Foveaux, 29 Sep 1808. Encl. In Foveaux-Castlereagh, 9 Nov. 1808. Ibid., I, vi, 695.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Hobart from 1810, were all enjoined by Macquarie not to correspond direct with England.14

When it was decided to found a settlement on the northern side of Van Diemen’s Land and to place Paterson in charge, certain difficulties in seniority and precedence immediately arose. Paterson was the senior military officer in New South Wales after the Governor and as such was the Lieutenant-Governor of the parent colony; though senior in civil rank to Collins he was junior in military rank, and was sensitive to the potential anomaly of becoming his subordinate; he said that he did not consider himself under the military jurisdiction of Collins, and that he conceived himself as being subordinate only to the Governor in Sydney in both civil and military matters.15 Paterson was therefore grateful for King's decision to separate the two settlements entirely, making them both equally subordinate to New South Wales. The dividing line was to be the forty-second parallel, the southern part to be known as the County of Buckinghamshire and the northern, the County of Cornwall.16 But in any case, Collins had no pretension to authority over Paterson; in 1809 he wrote that he had, after the deposition of Bligh, considered him his superior in civil capacity.17

When Macquarie was appointed Governor of the territory in 1809, he was instructed to consider whether one settlement in Van Diemen’s Land should not be made dependent on the other, "the superior settlement to be still dependent on the Governor of New South Wales.”18 Governor Bligh, during his eventful stay at the Derwent in 1809, had written to the Secretary of State that the excellence of the harbour and the establishment of overland communications made it unnecessary to have a Lieutenant-Governor at Port Dalrymple;19 and it is likely that a report by Surveyor-General Oxley, probably dating from early in 1810, gave weight to Bligh's opinion. He referred to its superior harbour, its larger population, and the fact that a small detachment would be adequate at Port Dalrymple; there would be a financial saving, and one Lieutenant-Governor would feel it in his interest, as well as his duty, to attend to each alike; he urged that Collins’s death provided an excellent opportunity for uniting the two settlements.20

Macquarie had already tentatively decided that Hobart Town should be the primary settlement, mainly because of the superiority of the harbour,21 and in April, 1810 he wrote that he thought it was "by far the most important and valuable of the two", and that Port Dalrymple should in future be dependent on it.22 But he decided to await the Secretary of State's decision which, received nearly two years later, endorsed his own.23 Accordingly Macquarie issued an Order in May, 1812 placing the officer in command at Port Dalrymple under the orders of the Commandant at Hobart Town, and stating that it would

14 Macquarie’s Instructions to Gordon, 20 Jan. 1810; to Murray, 16 June 1810; to Richie, 22 June 1812. Ibid., III, i, 707, 443, 723. 15 Paterson-King, 27 Sep. 1804. Ibid., III, i, 598. 16 King’s Government and General Order, 24 Sep. 1804. Ibid., III, i, 297. 17 Collins-Castlereagh, 31 May 1809. Ibid., III, i, 425. 18 Castlereagh-Macquarie, 14 May 1809. Ibid., I, vii, 84. 19 Bligh-Castlereagh, 10 June, 1809. Ibid., I, vii, 125. 20 Oxley’s Report on V.D.L., 1810. Ibid., III, i, 569. 21 Macquarie-Castlereagh, 8 Mar. 1810. Ibid., I, vii, 223. 22 Id., 30 Apr. 1810. Ibid., I, vii, 260. 23 Liverpool-Macquarie, 26 Jul. 1811. Ibid., I, vii, 264.

iii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

become a dependency of Hobart Town from 30 June, 1812. The arrangement, however, was not to interfere with the practice of the Northern Commandants reporting to Sydney, though the officer in command at Hobart Town could call on him for reports as well.24 There was no change in the relationship between Hobart and Sydney, and the instructions that the Lieutenant-Governor should report on all matters civil and military were renewed.25

Macquarie insisted on greater emphasis being placed on the subordinate nature of the office of Lieutenant-Governor and, with the appointment of Davey, the tendency was increased. Under-Secretary Goulburn had taken the extraordinary course of warning Macquarie to watch the behavior of Davey in his post,26 and Macquarie was hypersensitive and suspicious of any action taken by Davey that seemed in any way independent.

Davey, though given a Royal Commission in the same form as Collins’,27 was not issued with any Instructions by the Secretary of State; it was left to Macquarie to draw them up, and he made full use of the opportunity to impose as many restrictions as he could. He felt that if he himself was to be held accountable for the Colony’s welfare it was necessary that Davey should be "tied down by Rules";28 Davey was therefore denied the right to engage shipping or to enter into contracts; to draw bills, either by himself or through his Commissary, on the British Treasury (though this right had been allowed to Collins); to commence the erection of public buildings without previous approval; to make grants of land or of Government stock. As before, the command would devolve on the senior military officer on his death or absence.29 Though there was nothing in his Instructions forbidding his communication direct with London, Davey wrote only four despatches to the Secretary of State.30 Throughout his administration, not in any case distinguished by a display of competence, Davey was continually being hampered by the dictatorial interference of his chief in matters small and large.

In the north, the office of Commandant persisted, even for many years after Van Diemen’s Land became a colony distinct from New South Wales. In his instructions to Geils, who was appointed Northern Commandant on Davey's succession as Lieutenant-Governor, Macquarie directed that he should make reports to the Lieutenant-Governor and obey his instructions; and also to hold weekly sittings of the bench for the trial of local misdemeanours. The Deputy Commissary was to communicate direct with Sydney, but to send duplicates of his correspondence to Hobart; the Commandant was to report likewise. All applications for emancipation, land or stock were to be forwarded through Hobart to Sydney.31 The Lieutenant-Governor’s Instructions to the Commandant simply required him to report on all civil and military affairs in the north and to make regular quarterly returns.32 There was therefore an awkward division of authority over the Commandant

24 Macquarie-Geils, 1 June 1812. Ibid., III, i, 482. 25 Liverpool-Macquarie, 26 Jul. 1811. Ibid., I, vii, 364. 26 Macquarie-Goulburn, 30 June 1813, Private. Ibid.,II, vii, 789. 27 Davey’s Commission, 1 Sep. 1811. Ibid., III, ii, 13. 28 Macquarie-Bathurst, 28 June 1813. Ibid., I, vii, 709. 29 Macquarie’s Instructions to Davey, 30 Jan. 1813. Ibid., I, vii, 730. 30 Davey-Bathurst, Jul., 21, 30 Sep. 1814, 13 Apr. 1816. Ibid., III, ii, 111, 128, 130, 146. 31 Macquarie’s Instructions to Geils, 30 Jan. 1813; to Mackenzie, 5 Mar. 1814. Ibid., III, ii, 435, 442. 32 Davey’s Instructions to Geils, Feb. 1813. Ibid., III, ii, 439.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

and, in 1815, his instructions were modified to the extent that all his reports as well as all applications were to be sent through the Lieutenant-Governor, unless a direct oonveyance with Sydney offered and that he might not make any purchases or contracts without the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor.33 But it is obvious that the "dependence" of the northern settlement on Hobart was strictly limited, and this derogation on the Lieutenant- Governor’s authority was a subject of special enquiry by Commissioner Bigge. Sorell informed him that the Northern Commandant corresponded direct with Sydney, and received direct Macquarie's instructions.34

The Instructions issued by Macquarie to Sorell in 1817 were practically identical to Davey's.35 Sorell however was a man of far more capacity than his predecessor and despite the same restrictive clauses he contrived to administer the Colony with far less interference from Sydney; he also regularly wrote despatches to the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, and other British Departments, and received their instructions and acknowledgements.36 In 1824 the practice of sending settlers' letters of recommendation direct to Van Diemen’s Land was officially recognised;37 in short, the practice of independent communication between the Van Diemen’s Land Lieutenant-Governor and London became fairly established during the period 1817-23.

In 1819 Sorell consulted Judge Barron Field on the Lieutenant-Governor's authority to make local regulations; Field told him that it was competent for him "to make Bye Laws for the internal Regulation of the Colony, not repugnant to such of the Laws of England as apply to the Colony and not repugnant to such of Governor Macquaire’s Bye Laws as apply to Van Diemen's Land.”38 It was evident that the tendency towards autonomy was gathering weight; two events accelerated it: Commissioner Bigge's enquiry into the affairs of the Colony, and his subsequent report; and the departure of Macquarie, whose jealousy of the growing prosperity of Van Diemen's Land and whose autocratic attitude had become a significant factor in retarding progress.

Reporting to Bathurst in 1823, Bigge dwelt on the limited nature of the Lieutenant- Governor's power. Only recently had he been given the power to locate land to settlers on their arrival, subject to the approval of the Governor-in-Chief; he could not undertake any works in the Colony involving public funds or the labour of convicts, without previous approval; only small disbursements could be made on his own authority, and all accounts had to be submitted to Sydney; the position of the Northern Commandant detracted from his authority. He summed up:

It would appear that for the exercise of the Chief Branches of Authority in Van Diemen's Land, and for those that require an early decision, the sanction of the Governor in Chief is requisite …

33 Macquarie’s Instructions to Stewart, 28 Oct. 1815. Ibid., III, ii, 456. 34 Sorell-Bigge, 18 Mar. 1820. Ibid., III, iii, 183. 35 Macquarie’s Instructions to Sorell, 20 mar. 1817. Ibid., III, ii, 183. 36 Sorell-Macquarie, 16 May 1817 and 16 May 1817, Private. Ibid., III, ii, 204, 238. Macquarie-Bathurst, 21 Jul. 1821, No.24. Ibid., I, x, 531. 37 Goulburn-Sorell, 24 Jul. 1820. Ibid., III, iii, 39. 38 Sorell before Bigge, 6 May 1820. Ibid., III, iii, 898.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Bigge forecast that as Van Diemen’s Land developed (and at that time the rate of immigration was higher than in New South Wales) the inconvenience of this dependence would increase, and that its growing demands on the attention of the Governor-in-Chief would become too pressing to be dealt with adequately. As for Macquarie, while Bigge was careful not to accuse him straight out of impeding the progress of Van Diemen’s Land, "yet I think that your Lordship will have collected from my Report, that there has been some preference always shewn to ... New South Wales." In the distribution of stores and convicts Van Diemen's Land had always been meanly treated and it was generally believed by the settlers that it was due "to a certain Degree of jealousy of the rising prosperity of Van Diemen’s Land."

Without positively stating it as his opinion, Bigge hinted that the two governments should be separated, and that the deciding factor should be the future increase in the "amount and respectability" of the population. On the establishment of a separate criminal jurisdiction, it would be necessary to invest the Lieutenant-Governor with the power to sanction the execution of capital sentences, and he recommended that these powers should be given to the Lieutenant-Governor at the same time as they were conferred on the Governor of New South Wales by the proposed new Act.39 Privately to Sorell, Bigge had "no Doubt whatever" that an independent Judiciary would be granted.40

Sorell had done his best to reduce the tendency of the Northern Commandant to be responsible to Sydney rather than to himself; his instructions to that officer were more comprehensive than those of Davey. He made it clear that he was to be in "entire subordination" to the Lieutenant-Governor, to whom he was to report on all civil and military matters and before whom all incidental and contingent expenses were to be laid.41 Again, he informed Cimitiere that if special regulations were necessary in the north, or it were desirable to extend to Port Dalrymple regulations already established in the south, he should put the case before the Lieutenant-Governor; "the principle being that, in matters of local regulation not provided for by the Colonial Laws and orders the authority of the Lt. Governor (in the absence of superior) can alone operate in the settlements of Van Diemen’s Land.”42

When Bigge asked Sorell for information as to "the nature and extent of the Jurisdiction and Control" that he exercised over the northern settlements,43 Sorell replied that the Commandant acted primarily under instructions from the Governor-in-Chief, to whom he made reports and implied that the Lieutenant-Governor’s Jurisdiction was somewhat incidental.44 A few months later he had reason to complain of the Commandant’s assumption of more power than that with which he was vested, and called for the Governor’s adjudication on his ordering land applications, restoring cancelled tickets-of- leave, and making disbursements from the Government stores.45 Bigge, reporting to the Secretary of State on this subject in 1823 remarked that "the control of the Settlement at

39 Bigge-Bathurst, 11 Feb. 1823. Ibid., III, iv, 695. 40 Bigge-Sorell, 15 Nov. 1822. CSO1/115/2866. 41 Sorell’s Instructions to Stewart, 5 Dec. 1817. H.R.A. III, iii, 706. 42 Sorell-Cimitiere, 24 Nov. 1819. Ibid., III, ii, 538. 43 Bigge-Sorell, 13 Mar 1820. Ibid., III, ii, 842. 44 Sorell-Bigge, 18 Mar. 1820. Ibid., III, iii, 183. 45 Sorell-Macquarie, 15 May, 1820. Ibid., III, iii, 21.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Port Dalrymple forms a peculiar exception to the General Authority of the Lieutenant Governor", and suggested that some of the instructions he received from Sydney might with advantage be brought within the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor.46

The Act "for the better Administration of Justice in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and for the more effectual government thereof ..." was passed in July, 1823. Section 44 enabled the King when he thought fit, to erect Van Diemen's Land into a separate colony.47 Immediately this became known in the Colony agitation began for the clause to be put into effect. On behalf of several merchants and landholders, Edward Lord presented to the Secretary of State a statement in August, 1823 which must however have originated well before the Act was introduced. The argument was fourfold: the members of the Legislative Council proposed in Sydney by the Act were too far removed, and would be out of touch with the needs of Van Diemen’s Land; there were enough men of character and substance in this Colony to form a Council; a Council of Sydney merchants would not act fairly towards their Hobart counterparts; and the prosperity and respectability of the island made it ripe for separation.48

These suggestions fell on sympathetic ears in Dowing Street, and were reinforced by the discussions which took place between the Colonial 0ffice and the Lieutenant-Governor designate, George Arthur. He wrote that he understood that it was intended that Van Diemen's Land, if not to be entirely separated was to receive some measure of independence and he suggested that, as Lieutenant-Governor he should be vested with the following powers: to make land grants without interference from Sydney; to be solely responsible for the administration of the Colony's finances; to exercise the prerogative of mercy until the receipt of the royal pleasure; to appoint colonial officers; to grant tickets- of-leave and other remissions; to proceed with the construction of public buildings; and to communicate direct with the Home Government "not circuitously through the Governor of New South Wales." In short, considering the jealousy between the two colonies, the distance and delays in communication, the difficulty of maintaining convict discipline in a colony separate from, but subordinate to, another, and the growing wealth of the settlement, Arthur submitted that his Commission and Instructions "should be framed in such a Manner as to render the administration of the Government, as far as possible, independent" as thereby inconvenience and controversy between the two colonies would be prevented.49

One month later the Secretary of State instructed the Governor-in-Chief on the new relationship which was to be established between the two colonies. He was directed to send to the Lieutenant-Governor the drafts of all legislation which might particularly affect Van Diemen's Land, and he was not to lay any such legislation before the Legislative Council if the Lieutenant-Governor should report that it was inexpedient, except in cases of extrerme urgency. The Lieutenant-Governor alone was to be held responsible for all measures suggested by him to which the Governor’s sanction might be given; but if the Lieutenant-Governor’s advice appeared to be plainly unwise, the Governor was to "control his opinion". The Lieutenant-Governor was to have the exclusive responsibility of

46 Bigge-Bathurst, 11 Feb. 1823. Ibid., III, iv, 695. 47 4 Geo. IV, cap. 96. 48 E.Lord and others to Bathurst, 2 Aug. 1823. H.R.A., III, iv, 475. 49 Arthur-Horton, 28 Jul. 1823. Ibid., III, iv, 78.

vii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

receiving and deciding upon applications for land in the island, but the grants must be confirmed by the Governor who could exercise his discretion to suspend then if he considered that the Lieutenant-Governor had acted unreasonably. To facilitate these arrangements, the Survey Office in Tasmania was to become entirely independent of New South Wales headquarters. In financial matters the Lieutenant-Governor was to have the power of acting on his own discretion and would thus alone be responsible to the Crown. Periodical accounts were to be transmitted to Sydney, as well as suggestions on financial questions. The Lieutenant-Governor could recommend persons to the Governor as magistrates or other public officers, and the Governor would not be held responsible for such appointments, though he could remove them. In his exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy in respect of persons convicted in the Van Diemen’s Land Supreme Court the Governor would be guided by the recommendations of the Lieutenant-Governor, who was to make the decision and be responsible for its propriety. The power of remissions of sentences passed in England remained exclusively vested in the Governor; but in the case of Van Diemen’s Land convicts, he was to avail himself of the advice of the Lieutenant- Governor. The latter was given the right of direct communication with the Colonial Office, but he must send copies of his despatches to Sydney, The public works which had been recommended by Bigge or which might be authorised by the British authorities were to be carried on under the direction of the Lieutenant-Governor alone; but if the Lieutenant- Governor wished to initiate works not so recommended or otherwise authorised, he must first submit plans and specifications to the Governor. A copy of this despatch constituted Arthur’s Instructions.50

As soon as the news of the Act of 1823 reached the Colony, a public meeting in Hobart agreed to a memorial to the Secretary of State expressing pleasure at the prospect of separation. Sorell, now superseded by Arthur, brought this document to England with him, and at the same time offered to the Secretary of State his opinions on the relationship between the two colonies. He said that Van Diemen's Land was not dependent on New South Wales " in any point, if its relations with His Majesty's Government are allowed to be direct;" and it would be to the great benefit of the island if, in all matters of internal administration, the Lieutenant-Governor could act "under direct and unfettered responsibility to his His Majesty’s Government." He went on to suggest independence in matters of colonial revenue, public works, land grants, magisterial and temporary appointments, and remissions of sentence.51

The probationary period of semi-independence lasted until General Ralph Darling was appointed Governor of New South Wales; then the opportunity given by the need for a new Commission was taken to make the two administrations entirely separate, and an Order-in- Council of 14 June, 1825 constituted Van Diemen's Land an independent colony of Great Britain.

Darling was given two practically identical Commissions and sets of Instructions relating respectively to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. He landed at Hobart on his way to Sydney, and the tenth article of his Commission provided that, in the event of his death or absence out of the island, the administration would devolve on the Lieutenant-Governor,

50 Bathurst-Brisbane, 28 Aug. 1823. Ibid., I, xi, 109. 51 Sorell-Bathurst, 26 Nov. 1824. Ibid., I, iv, 576.

viii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

to whom the same powers were granted; and he issued a proclamation announcing the erection of the island into a separate colony.

Darling was therefore the first Governor of the Colony, though in his and his successors' absence, the Lieutenant-Governor was the chief executive. Since no Governor visited the Colony during the period of these arrangements (i.e., until 1855) the Lieutenant-Governor's powers were never curtailed. Darling was careful not to take any executive measures other than formal ones,52 and when he embarked for Sydney on 5 December, 1825 the administration immediately devolved on Arthur, who retained the Commission which appointed Darling Governor of the island, the Royal instructions, a Warrant appointing a Legislative Council, and the Order-in-Council of separation.53

Darling's Van Diemen’s Land Commission, that is the instrument which conveyed to Arthur his power, provided that there should be an Executive Council any member of which the Governor could suspend and any vacancy in which he could fill, subject to London approval; that he should have power to appoint justices of the peace, coroners, constables and "other necessary officers"; power to grant pardons and reprieves, except in cases of treason or murder, when the remission was to be subject to the Royal pleasure; to levy armed forces and to execute martial law; to exercise limited sovereign naval powers. With the advice and consent of the Executive Council, he had the authority to divide the island into districts, counties, hundreds, towns, townships and parishes, and the power to erect fortifications and to grant lands.54

In the Instructions it was provided that the Executive Council should consist of the Governor (i.e., the Lieutenant-Governor), the Lieutenant-Governor (i.e., the senior military officer), the Chief Justice, the Archdeacon and the Colonial Secretary. The Governor was to preside or, in his absence, the next senior member; two members, besides the Presidents, formed a quorum. In the execution of the powers conferred by the Commission and Instructions or by later instructions, the Governor was "in all things [to] consult and advise with the Executive Council", and he was not to exercise his powers "except by and with the concurrence and advice of" the Council. But there were certain exceptions; in case of urgency he could exercise his powers without the Council's consent, and such action should be subsequently brought before them for "revision and sanction". Also, matters not considered "sufficiently important" for the Council could be acted upon without consultation, as well as matters "which may be of such a nature that in your judgment Our Service would sustain material prejudice by" consultation. Only the Governor could introduce matters to the Council, but members could apply to him to have any matter discussed. Should the Governor disagree with a majority of the whole, he could still carry the day; any dissentient member could enter the grounds of his dissent in the minutes. If the Governor should act against the will of a majority, he should report the circumstances fully to the Secretary of State; the minutes were in any case to be sent home twice yearly.

The Instructions further provided for the establishment of a Commission of Survey and valuation of waste lands, for the granting of land, and for the collection of quit rents. In the case of a death sentence in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice was to make a full report

52 Darling-Bathurst, 5 Dec. 1825 Ibid., III, v, 10. 53 Darling-Arthur, 5 Dec. 1825. CSO1/911/19173. See also Bathurst-Darling, 27 Jul. 1825. H.R.A., I, xii, 40. 54 Darling’s V.D.L. Commission, 16 Jul. 1825. Ibid., III, v, 3.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

of the case to the Governor, to be considered in the Executive Council in the presence of the former. The Governor must make the decision whether to grant a pardon or a reprieve, with or without the concurrence of the Council.55

Enclosed in the Instructions was a Warrant for the creation of a Legislative Council, with whose advice the Lieutenant-Governor was to proceed to make laws for the "peace, welfare and good government" of Van Diemen’s Land, subject to the Instructions which contained a list of subjects upon which local legislation could not be made. The creation of a Legislative Council in Van Diemen's Land had been enabled by the Act of 1823; the King could appoint a Council of not more than seven or less than five persons resident in the Colony; the Governor (i.e the Lieutenant-Governor) could make laws with the advice of a majority of members, provided such laws were not repugnant to the laws of England. The opposition of a majority of members would prevent the passage of any law, unless the Lieutenant-Governor was of opinion that it was "essential to the peace and safety, and cannot without extreme injury to the welfare and good government of the … colony be rejected ...", in which case the law would pass, provided that the Lieutenant-Governor could win the support of at least one member; the dissentients could enter their views in the minutes, and the law would have force until the Royal pleasure was known. The Governor could pass laws intended to suppress or prevent insurrection or rebellion in the face of the united opposition of the Council. But no law could be proposed unless the Chief Justice had first certified that it was not repugnant to British law; and once passed every law must be transmitted for Royal approval or disallowance; it could be assumed to be valid if not disallowed within three years, The Governor could make provisional appointments to casual vacancies in the Council.56

With the granting of independent status and the appointment of Arthur as Lieutenant- Governor, the position of Northern Commandant lost much of its importance. In 1825 Arthur resisted the instruction57 that the office should henceforth be that of Civil instead of Military Commandant, because he felt that the unsettled state of the Colony as a result of the activities of the bushrangers made it "a nervous time to take the immediate Command of the North side of the Island out of the hands of a Military Officer ...." The duties were a mixture of civil and military matters, but chiefly the latter; Arthur found them difficult to define,58 but in 1832 he instructed the new Commandant Fairtlough, that he would not be called upon to require reports from the northern branch officers-in-charge, except under extraordinary circumstances; apart from his military duties his function would be a general superintendence of the district with a particular authority over all convicts employed in the public service; also he should keep records of all arrivals and departures, and control the issue of stores.59 On the same occasion he restored the military status of the office which, to Arthur, made it "infinitely more efficient".60

In 1835 Arthur again re-defined the functions of the office. Regular inspections of the prisons, the house of correction, the Government school and the hospital should be made

55 Darling’s Instructions, 17 Jul. 1825. Ibid., I, xii, 107. 56 4 Geo. IV, cap. 96. 57 Bathurst-Arthur, 27 June 1825, No.12, GO1/2. 58 Arthur-Bathurst, 9 Jan. 1826 and encl. GO33/1. 59 Colonial Secretary-Fairtlough, 12 Sep. 1832. CSO36/1; see also CSO1/607/13862. 60 Arthur-Goderich, 15 Oct. 1832, No.53. GO33/12.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

and reports made through the Colonial Secretary; he should prepare port clearances only for Government vessels, and transmit accounts against the Government to the Civil Auditor or the Commissary. He had a general superintendence over the northern officers of the public service, and should see that they conformed to the rules; and he had to authorise the issue of stores.61

In common with the Commandants of the penal stations the Northern Commandant had, when the division between colonial and convict expenditure was made, been paid from Imperial funds. In 1844, however, the local Committee on Convict Expenditure recommended that the convict money issued for the purpose be discontinued, and the Lieutenant-Governor agreed. But since the office fulfilled such a useful function in the general oversight of northern affairs Eardley-Wilmot decided to retain it on colonial funds.62 The Secretary of State approved.63 However the office persisted only for one more year and was finally discontinued at the end of September, 1845.64

A period of consolidation followed the separation from New South Wales, during which Arthur created his administrative machine and chose his subordinates. This work was done practically from scratch and almost entirely on Arthur’s own initiative; after referring to the lack of help and guidance from New South Wales, he wrote: …no Dispatches or Instructions of any importance were in the possession of my Predecessor, and I venture to affirm that no officer serving under your Lordship's Orders was ever more decidedly thrown upon his own un-directed responsibility. In the Administration of a new and penal Colony at such a distance from the Mother Country cases must continually arise which call for decision on points for which no instructions can possibly provide, this I have especially felt in the formation of this Government on its separation from New South Wales.65

The following year he wrote that since separation "…we have had all the inconveniences to contend with of new measures and new men."66

Arthur himself gives a summary of the mulltifarious duties of Lieutenant-Governor in 1828: The constant questions arising from the occupancy of lands by new Settlers, and the consideration of the claims of the old ones - the increasing references respecting prisoners - their labour - their clothing - their rations - their escapes - their captures - their crimes - their good conduct - their rewards and punishments and the institutions necessary for their care and control with the endless memorials and petitions are all circumstances which, in some shape or another, daily press for investigation, and consideration, and decision.

In the exercise of these duties Arthur said he was in his office

61 Colonial Secretary-Deare, 30 June 1835. CSO36/2. 62 Eardley-Wilmot-Stanley, 14 May 1844, No.103. GO33/48. 63 Stanley-Eardley-Wilmot, 16 Nov. 1844, No.350 (received 17 June 1845). GO1/52. 64 Cumberland-Colonial Secretary, 30 Aug. 1845, 4 June 1846. CSO20/3/79, CSO20/30/705. 65 Arthur-Bathurst, 17 Sep. 1827, No.56. GO33/2. 66 Arthur-Huskisson, 1 May 1828. GO33/3.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

generally two hours in the summer and one hour in the winter before my breakfast time (which is eight o’clock) every morning, and seldom occupied less than ten, most generally twelve hours every day and constantly until a late hour at night ….67

An insight into the immense load which fell on the Lieutenant-Governor's shoulders during these formative years is given in another despatch Arthur wrote in defence of assistance in his office. Much of his time was taken up with personal interviews with settlers, for apparently everyone in the Colony imagined that nothing could be done without direct application to the Lieutenant-Governor; next he listed the disposal of cases before the Supreme Court, Quarter Sessions and the Magistrates; this absorbed much time because of the need for careful evaluation in the exercise of the Lieutenant-Governor's power to detain in the settled districts and to work in irons, all convicts secondarily sentenced to transportation. Every case in the Supreme Court was reviewed with the Chief Justice; and all cases before the Quarter Sessions or Magistrates were carefully considered from the point of view both of the legality of sentence and the subsequent disposal of the offenders. All petitions and applications for the mitigation of sentence were thoroughly investigated and, though he was assisted by the Colonial Secretary and the Principal Superintendent of Convicts in the assignment of convicts to settlers, the final decision always rested with the Lieutenant-Governor. Similarly, though a Board had been established to deal with applications for land, every case required careful deliberation and was given the Lieutenant-Governor’s personal attention before the Board’s recommendation was adopted. He had to deal with the correspondence of those officers (the Chief Justice, the Archdeacon, the Attorney-General) who claimed the right to communicate direct with the Lieutenant-Governor; and the framing of legislation took much time. The Councils, Legislative and Executive, sometimes occupied his entire time for many successive days.68

An echo of the dependence of the Colony of New South Wales was heard when Bourke succeeded Darling in 1831; he wrote to Arthur asking him to communicate "any particulars of the State of Van Diemen’s Land which you may deem worthy of notice." He said that Arthur’s correspondence with Darling appeared to have been chiefly private, and had therefore left the Colony with its owner; in consequence Bourke remained ignorant of affairs in the island.69 The request was probably innocent enough but Arthur, by now accustomed to complete supremacy in his own colony and very jealous of the independence he had striven for, was immediately put on the defensive. In reply he referred to Brisbane's Instructions of 1823 and pointed out that Darling had avoided interfering in the slightest way with his administration while actually in the Colony, and that his authority had ceased immediately he had left it. He, Arthur, had therefore never considered it necessary to convey reports to New South Wales. To the Under Secretary he said that he had been under the impression that the moment the Governor left the Colony his powers automatically vested in the Lietenant-Governor, "…and I have never considered myself in the slightest degree responsible to General Darling, or accountable to him in any manner for the Civil Government of the Colony during his absence from it." He thought that even before separation, the question had been set at rest by Bathurst's instruction to Brisbane in 1823; he had been in the habit of communicating privately with

67 Arthur-Murray, 6 Nov. 1828, No.78. GO33/4. 68 Id., 2 Jan. 1831, No.6. GO33/8. 69 Bourke-Arthur, 17 Dec. 1831. GO39/1.

xii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Darling on matters of mutual concern, but he would have expected "painful results" from a practice of making official reports.70

To allay any confusion on the point, the Secretary of State reminded Bourke that despite the fact that he held a Commission as Governor of Van Diemen's Land, it was by no means intended that he should "exercise any control over or interfere with the Civil Affairs of that Government, which is considered wholly distinct and independent from your own Command, excepting so far as may relate to Military matters." The Governor's civil authority would supersede the Lieutenant-Governor's only should he actually be present in the island.71

On several occasions the question of the legality of administration under superseded Commissions was raised, and the first provides a good illustration of the difficulties imposed by distance. The Colony had received news of the death of George IV in the English press before the Secretary of State's Circular of 29 June, 1830, which enclosed instructions for the issue of a proclamation to continue in office all persons in such office at the time of the death.72

Arthur's Crown Law Officers had advised that the Commissions of such officers as the Lieutenant-Governor and the Chief Justice would expire six months after the King's death, as provided in an Act of the sixth year of Queen Anne; the Chief Justice and the Attorney- General agreed that the British proclamation could have no effect in prolonging the office of the holders of Royal Commissions beyond that time. After much consultation it was decided that the Lieutenant-Governor should issue a new Commission of the Peace, a new Commission to the Attorney General and other officers called upon to exercise authority. This was done and, though the Law Officers were doubtful of the propriety of the proceedings, the Chief Justice was satisfied that public business could proceed. All were agreed that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to indemnify the Lieutenant- Governor, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Sheriff and the Magistrates for all acts performed after the end of six months, and that the period should be extended to twelve months. Also the Supreme Court would need a new Charter, and the Warrant for the Legislative Council would have to be renewed.73

The difficulty had, however, been in part anticipated by the British Government. The Secretary of State had already forwarded an Act74 to render valid acts done by the Governors of colonies since the decease of the Crown, and to extend the life of Commissions to eighteen months after such decease. But this was not received until May 1831, five months after the expiration of the six months. Later, Arthur disclosed the Goverment's embarrassment: The anxiety under which the Government laboured at the time was inexpressible - there was neither Law - Government nor Judge - nor provision for the administration of Justices or for the conduct of the Government;

70 Arthur-Howick, 19 Jan. 1832. GO26/3. 71 Goderich-Bourke, 5 Jul. 1832, Private. H.R.A., I, xvi, 673. 72 Murray-Arthur, 29 June 1830, Circ. GO1/11. 73 Arthur-Murray, 2 Jan. 1831, No.7 GO33/8. 74 1 Gul. IV, cap. 4.

xiii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

but since it was essential that a semblance of government should be preserved, the Lieutenant-Governor continued to act, and the Supreme Court sat for civil business, hoping that any actions would subsequently be sanctioned. One great object was to prevent public suspicion from becoming aroused in consequence of there being no criminal sittings; for had it been known "by the Convicts and the lower orders" that the Government and the Supreme Court were not in legal existence, "the most distressing consequences might have resulted."75

A similar situation occurred when Bourke succeeded to the government of New South Wales. Bourke's Commission had not been opened in this Colony when he became Governor, but the Chief Justice assured Arthur that it was proper for him to continue to administer the government under Darling's Commission.76 Arthur did so, and the "fear of giving occasion to some legal points of difficulty" made him defer making the official notification of Bourke's succession.77 The Secretary of State therefore instructed Bourke to forward his Commission to Van Diemen’s Land so that it might be opened there and the administration conducted under the authority it conveyed.78 Bourke replied that he would have called at Van Diemen's Land on his way to Sydney in order to open his Commission in person, but for the fact that he did not consider it respectful to Darling to supersede him in Van Diemen’s Land before he had taken over from him personally in Sydney. Since his arrival he had not been able to visit the island and had not thought it proper to forward his Commission unless directed to do so.79

Both these problems recurred with the death William IV and the succession of Gipps to New South Wales. After the death of the King the Secretary of State sent the Lieutenant- Governor a new Commission and Warrants under the Royal Sign Manual authorising him to reappoint under the Colonial Seal the holders of those offices which became automatically vacant eighteen months after the King's death.80 This was done in December, 1838, but the Judges were doubtful whether their new Commissions were valid, because they were not issued under the Great Seal; they thought that the only power the Lieutenant-Governor had to appoint a judge was in the event of death, absence or resignation.81 And the Puisne Judge questioned whether the Lieutenant-Governor's own Commission was valid. Worried at these doubts, Franklin asked for them to be removed.82 As to the Judges' Commissions, the Secretary of State dealt with these doubts by sending new instruments, under the Great Seal. When the Act for New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land was renewed he would take the opportunity of having it declared that the Colonial Commissions were retrospectively valid.83 But in Franklin's case, if Gipps had taken his Commission as Governor of Van Diemen's Land to New South Wales without having had it opened in this Colony, "…there is too much reason for the doubt which has been

75 Arthur-Goderich, 12 Aug. 1833. GO33/14. 76 Arthur-Howick, 19 Jan. 1832. GO33/10. 77 Arthur-Bourke, 5 Jan. 1832. Encl. in supra. 78 Goderich-Bourke, 5 Jul. 1832, Private. H.R.A., I, xvi, 674. 79 Bourke-Goderich, 9 Feb. 1833, Private. Ibid., I, xvii, 31. 80 Glenelg-Franklin, 25 Jul. 1838, No. 327. GO1/29. 81 Pedder’s statement, 11 Jan. 1839 and A. Montagu-Colonial Secretary, 31 Dec. 1838. Encl. in Franklin- Glenelg, 22 Jan. 1839, No.10. GO33/31. 82 Franklin-Glenelg, 2 Feb. 1839, Sep. and Conf. GO1/33. 83 Normanby-Franklin, 28 June 1839, No.73 (received 9 Dec. 1839). GO1/34.

xiv

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

expressed as to the validity of your powers as Lieutenant-Governor." He hoped that Gipps would have long since sent his Commission for publication in Van Diemen's Land, and he proposed to take advantage of the renewal of the Act to correct the anomaly.84 However the continuing Act of 1840 contained no such amendment, and when Sir Charles FitzRoy was appointed Governor-General of the Australian colonies, Denison received from him his Van Diemen’s Land Commission in the normal way.85

One of the first cases to test the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor was the dismissal of Arthur's Attorney-General, Gellibrand. Arthur had doubted his competence to act on the recommendation of the Executive Council and the advice of the Chief Justice, and he hoped that his action in dismissing such a senior officer would be endorsed.86 It was;87 and in 1833, when the suspension of the Colonial Treasurer was raised, the Secretary of State confirmed that the Lieutenant-Governor had full power to suspend any civil officer, whether or not that officer held his appointment from the Crown.88

Also confirmed in these early years was the Governor's power to distribute convicts at his discretion. An impression was abroad that he had the power of sending to penal stations only those convicts who had been convicted of colonial crimes, but the Secretary of State ruled that he could dispose of the convicts assigned to his care in the manner he thought best.89

The principle that the British Government was responsible for any action that the Lieutenant-Governor might take under his Instructions was recognised in the case of Arthur's struggles with the press. In 1827 he passed the Licensing Act, requiring all newspaper proprietors to apply annually for a licence to print their papers, such licence to be granted at the Lieutenant-Governor's discretion. This was disallowed in London, but the Secretary of State informed Arthur that the "entire and individual responsibility for the propriety of this measure, is to be borne, not by yourself, nor by the Members of Council, but by the Ministers of the Crown in this Country "90

On the other hand, the British Government was careful not to allow the Governor's authority to become prejudiced by any colonial body; when Arthur proposed to set up a "Board for the control of the Public Service", the Secretary of State approved but added that it should be the Lieutenant-Governor's care not to allow it to become an authoritative body; its functions should be to "assist, not to supersede, the exercise of the Governor's juclgement.''91

At this time Arthur was reminded by the British Government of the nature of his Instructions. He had, in a particular instance concerning the denization of officers in the Colony, feared that there was a contradiction between the Instructions he had originally received and later directions from the Secretary of State; but the latter informed him, rather

84 Id., 17 June 1839, Sep. and Conf. (received 9 Dec. 1839). GO1/34. 85 Denison-Grey, 26 June 1851, No. 80. GO33/73. See also Denison-FitzRoy, 3 Jul. 1851. GO53/6. 86 Arthur-Bathurst, 11 Feb. 1826. GO33/1. 87 Hay-Arthur, 21 Apr. 1826. GO2/1. 88 Stanley-Arthur, 27 June 1833, GO1/15. 89 Bathurst-Arthur, 23 Apr. 1826, No.14. GO1/4. 90 Murray-Arthur, 31 Jul. 1828, Sep. GO1/7. 91 Id., 21 Aug. 1828, No.20. GO1/7.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

tartly, that such a contradiction could not arise; that the Commission from which he derived his authority required him to administer the Government according to the instructions he might receive from the Crown through the Secretary of State. "Whenever, therefore, you may receive Instructions from this Department, varying from those, which you have already received under the Royal Sign Manual, they must be understood as indicating a change in the Royal Pleasure on the subject."92

Certain changes were brought about in the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor by the Act relating to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land that was passed in July, 1828.93 The appellate jurisdiction, hitherto vested in the Lieutenant-Governor, was removed, and all appeals were henceforth to be made to the King-in-Council. This was done not because the power had been misused but because the British Government had to make a choice between opposite difficulties: the danger of leaving the local judge free from all oontrol was appreciated, but there was an incongruity in an appeal from a Judge's decision to a man un-instructed in law.

The membership of the Legislative Council was increased to a maximum of fifteen and a minimum of ten, to keep pace with the increase of population. Two thirds would form a quorum, exclusive of the Lieutenant-Governor or other presiding member. The majority's dissent would prevent the passage of a law, but the Lieutenant-Governor could refuse to lay a proposed law before the Council in which case, on any member's request, he must present to the Council a copy of his refusal, and any member could register his protest in the minutes. The Act omitted certain of the provisions of the 1823 Act which had enabled the Lieutenant-Governor to legislate in opposition to a majority of the Council. Any law passed was to be transmitted to the Supreme Court for enrolment, and for the judges to decide whether or not it was repugnant to British law; if not, it would take effect fourteen days later. If so, the Lieutenant-Governor was to suspend its operation until review by the Council; if they adhered to it, the judges were to be notified, and the law would not take effect until the Royal pleasure was known. The Lieutenant-Governor was himself if possible to preside over the Council in person, and he had a deliberative as well as a casting vote The importance of the Lieutenant-Governor's presence was stressed, because of the practice which had grown up in New South Wales of the Governor's absenting himself in deference to the opinion of the Chief Justice; the British Govermnent held that this practice not only tended to lessen his consequence, but also exempted him from responsibility. Finally, the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor to issue tickets-of-leave or to withdraw assigned servants from their masters was put beyond dispute.94 The provisions of this Act which regulated the functioning of the Legislative Council were continued by various Acts until the Constitution of the Colony was remodelled in 1850.95

In 1829, too, a serious challenge to the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor was made, in the celebrated Jane New Case. For many years it had been the practice to transfer, at the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor, convicts from New South Wales to Van Diemen's Land or vice versa. Thus in 1826 Jane New, a convict, was permitted to accompany her husband to New South Wales. There she committed an offence and was convicted, but the

92 Id., 6 Nov. 1829, No.80. GO1/9. 93 9 Geo IV, cap. 83. 94 Murray-Arthur, 31 Jul. 1828, No.17. GO1/7. 95 1 & 2 Vict., cap. 50; 3 & 4 Vict., cap. 62; 5 & 6 Vict., cap. 76.

xvi

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Chief Justice reoommended her to mercy and a pardon was granted; but on her original sentence she was remanded to the Female Factory. Her personal attractions led to an effort for her release and, on the grounds that she was not a convict in New South Wales she was, under a writ of habeas corpus, brought before the Supreme Court; here it was ruled that the Governor of New South Wales had no control over her and that she must be considered a convict illegally at large and returned to Van Diemen's Land. If this Judgement were true, hundreds of convicts would have been involved. And, more important, the Court ruled incidentally that the ninth section of the New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Act did not give the Governor power to revoke assignment, except for the purpose of conferring a ticket-of-leave. Arthur felt that the Chief Justice had been indiscreet in ruling thus; there had been no abuse of the power of revoking assignments, and the Secretary of State had stated that the power to issue tickets-of-leave and to withdraw assigned servants was essential to the good government of the Colony.96

The New South Wales Supreme Court had also made other embarrassing rulings: that only in the Colony specified in the sailing instructions from the Navy Board to the Surgeon Superintendent would the convicts be subject to convict laws. Arthur, supposing that a Governor "had an unquestionable property in their [the convicts'] services under the terms of the contract entered into by order of the Secretary of State for the removal to either or both of the Colonies" had altered the destination of convict ships as between the two colonies; his Law Officers were of opinion that the mistakes of the past could only be remedied, and the future provided for, by an Act of Parliament, vesting in the Governor a Property in the services of those convicts which might have been detained, transferred or removed in this manner. When on a previous occasion the Home Secretary had been asked whether the Governor had the power to revoke assignment, he had said that the Act did not preclude nor was it intended to preclude, the local government from making regulations for the control of the assignment system. But the New South Wales Supreme Court had now ruled otherwise, to the effect that, under the Act, an assignment of a convict to a settler was unconditional, and vested in the master the same unrestricted property in the convicts’ services as the Governor had originally had; indeed, the Governor was precluded from granting a ticket-of-leave, because of the completeness of the master's property, and the power to revoke an assignment was a conditional one, to be used only for the purpose of granting a ticket-of-leave.97

The Secretary of State received with surprise the construction of the New South Wales Supreme Court on Section 9 of the Transportation Act; it had been framed with the'"distinct intention of confering on the Governors of the Australian colonies an unlimited discretion to revoke the assignnent of convicts". Both his Under-Secretary, Twiss, and the British Crown Law authorities agreed, and the latter reported that Section 9 gave the Governor power to revoke the assignment of a convict of whose sentence it was not intended to grant any remission. Satisfied with these views, the Secretary of State stated that the opinion of the Supreme Court was "destitute of authority"; therefore the Governor was to continue to administer the Act as it related to assignment as before. But on the question of the Governor's power to alter the destination of convicts, it was the opinion of the British Government that they could not specify the place of punishment

96 Arthur-Twiss, 2 June 1829. GO33/6. 97 Arthur-Hay, 7 Aug. 1829. GO33/6.

xvii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

except in the case of secondary transportation; nor was it considered that they should have such a power.98

In the case of Van Diemen's Land it remained only to deal with the question of the transfer of convicts from one colony to the other. The Secretary of State had not realised, before he had received Arthur's despatch, that there were a large number of convicts who, originally destined for New South Wales, had been landed and assigned in Van Diemen's Land and would not, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court, be subject to convict laws. In these circumstances, he said, the British Governrrent would lose no time in making sorne provision whereby the Governors of the two colonies would be authorised, under special circumstances, to alter the destination of convicts either on their arrival, or afterwards, and such provision would have retrospective force.99 The Act which settled the law in this respect100 did not, however, arrive until January, 1831.101 It provided that convicts destined for one colony, but disembarked at the other, were to be subject to the same laws as the other convicts in that colony; and that the Governor of one colony might remove convicts to the other.

Between 1833 and 1835 it was questioned whether the Lieutenant-Governor had the power of altering the sentences of British Courts, so as to increase their severity by putting convicts in irons. The Chief Justice held that they could not legally be put in irons except on special occasions and then more as a precaution than as a punishment.102 The British Crown Law authorities agreed, but the Secretary of State informed the Lieutenant- Governor that, so long as the law remained unchanged no fresh instructions would be issued; in any actions at law in which convicts claimed compensation for detention in irons, the responsibility would not rest with the Lieutenant-Governor.103

The foundations of colonial administration in Tasmania were so firmly consolidated during Arthur's term that there were few important changes during subsequent years as a Crown colony. The powers and authorities of the office had been tested at most points, and the cases which subsequently modified it were fewer and at longer intervals. The stage that the development of the office had reached at this time was summed up in 1837, when Lord Glenelg "brought together various Rules which he finds to have been hitherto dispersed through the correspondence of his predecessors." The compilation usually known as the Colonial Regulations was issued by the Colonial Office as a manual for colonial administration.104

The term of a governor was set at six years, but it could be extended; this remained the rule throughout the Nineteenth Century. If he were of the rank of colonel or higher, he would be vested with the command of the forces in the colony; but if he were a civilian, a naval officer or a soldier of lesser rank, he would not have the command, but nevertheless he would have the authority to distribute the forces "as the safety and welfare of the Colony

98 Murray-Darling, 30 Jan. 1830, Sep. H.R.A. I, xv, 346; see also Murray-Arthur, 30 Jan. 1830, Sep. GO1/12. 99 Murray-Arthur, 7 Mar. 1830, No.11. GO1/12. 100 1 Gul. IV, cap. 39. 101 Murray-Arthur, 26 Sep. 1830, No.37. GO1/12. 102 Arthur-Stanley, 27 May 1834, No.31. GO33/17. 103 Aberdeen-Arthur, 21 Feb. 1835, Sep. and Conf. GO1/18. 104 Also editions of 1843 and 1867. See infra.

xviii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

may require"; yet even so, in wartime, the officer in command of the troops would be supreme, though the Governor might hold higher rank. A Governor's powers were enumerated: he could grant a free pardon or respite to a criminal convicted in a colonial court, except in the case of treason or murder; in this case he could do so pending reference to the Home Government. In the 1843 edition of the Regulations this exception was omitted. He could remit fines and penalties under a certain sum, and over that sum pending reference; the 1867 edition removed the limit. If the colony had a legislative assembly, the Governor could grant marriage licences, letters of administration, probates, and had the presentation to benefices. He issued writs of election, convoked, prorogued and dissolved the legislative bodies. He could appoint officers, but such appointments were temporary and provisional until confirmed from England; as for suspension, the 1843 edition required him to consult with his Executive Council and the 1867 edition confirmed that he had the power, with his Council, of dismissing public servants who held office during pleasure. In legislation, he had either to assent or withhold his assent to bills, but he could not assent to bills on certain subjects which were reserved for the Royal Assent, unless such bills were suspended from operation until confirmed. Finally, if anything should happen in the colony that was not provided for in his Commission or Instructions, the Governor might "take order for the present", provided that he did not commence or declare war without the Crown's knowedge, except in order to prevent or repel hostilities.

When Franklin assumed the administration in 1837 he was the first non-military Governor to hold office. From the beginning he found a tendency on the part of some officers, particularly those of the Medical and Ordnance Departments (both military establishments) to "disconnect themselves from the Civil Authorities under my Orders, under the erroneous impression, as I apprehend, that owing to the circumstance of my not being a military officer, they are amenable only to their governing heads in England." He therefore wanted an end put to the impressions which gave rise to this tendency.105 The Secretary of State agreed with his Under-Secretary, James Stephen, that it seemed “indispensable that the supremacy of the Governor over all officers Civil and Mlilitary should be acknowledged in the most clear and simple terms."106

The Act "for the better governing of the Australian Colonies" reached Van Diemen’s Land in January, 1851; the next eight months were required for the division of the island into electoral districts, the fixing of franchise qualifications and the compilation of electoral lists in preparation for the elections for the first representative assembly. They took place in October and November, and the Lieutenant-Governor opened the newly constituted Council on the last day of the year.

The Act repealed the old provisions relating to the Legislative Council. It enabled the establishment of a new Council to consist of not more than twenty-four members; one- third, or the nearest number under one-third, were to be appointed by the Crown, the remainder were to be elected.

With the advice and, for the first time, the consent, of the Legislative Council the Governor was authorised to make laws provided they were not repugnant to British law. The thirty- second section enabled the Lieutenant-Governor and Council to amend the laws

105 Franklin-Glenelg, 6 Sep. 1837, No.95. GO33/27. 106 James Stephen-R. Byham, 3 Mar. 1838, No.293. GO1/30.

xix

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

concerning elections and elective qualifications and to establish, instead of a Legislative Council, “… a Council and a House of Representatives, or other separate Legislative Houses", to consist of members "appointed or elected", and to vest in such bodies the powers and functions of the Legislative Council; provided that any bill passed for this purpose should be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.107

It was not long before moves began to be made among the more progressive elements to end the nominee system altogether and to make the change to responsible government foreshadowed in the Act. In June, 1852 the Legislative Council of New South Wales had set up a select committee to amend its constitution and the report appeared in September; Victoria and South Australia were similarly anxious to introduce fully responsible government. So in Van Diemen's Land a select committee was set up to draft a new constitution. It consisted of ten members, two only of whom were official nominees. It reported on 28 September, 1853 and, after an extended controversy on questions of principle and detail, the Constitution Bill was passed on 31 October, 1854. It was forwarded to the Secretary of State, 108 confirmed by an Order-in-Council.109 and proclaimed in the Colony.

The Act provided that a Legislative Council and a House of Assernbly should take the place of the Legislative Council, after the latter had decided on electoral districts and had issued writs for the first elections. The Governor, the Council and the House together should be called the Parliament of Tasmania. The Legislative Council was to consist of fifteen members elected by qualified inhabitants, and one-third was to retire every three years. The House of Assembly was to be of thirty elected members.110 The Parliament met for the first time on 2 December, 1856.

The Governor (now relieved of his prefix) was, of course "a component and indispensable member and branch of the local Legislature." He was vested with the authority either to give or to withhold his assent to bills passed by Parliament, and until such assent was forthcoming no law could come into force; no law could be passed which could not subsequently be disallowed by the Crown, though in some cases there was a time limit beyond which the prerogative of disallowance could not be exercised.111 Every law which had received the Governor's assent (unless it contained a suspending clause) came into effect either immediately or at a time specified in the Act; but, in the event of disallowance by the Crown, the law would cease to have operation in the Colony from the date of the publication of that disallowance.112

For many years the continued transportation of convicts to the Colony from Great Britain had been identified by the liberal and radical elements in the community with the subjection of the Colony to the Home Country; the longer transportation lasted here after it had been discontinued to New South Wales, the more symbolic of subjugation did it become. When transportation ceased in 1853, the direct importance of the Colony to Great

107 13 & 14 Vict., cap. 59. 108 Denison-Grey, 15 Nov. 1854, No.47. GO33/81. 109 Russell-Fox Young, 4 May 1855. GO1/96. 110 18 Vict., No.17. 111 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1843. 112 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1867.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Britain was so far reduced that quite apart from the local pressures exerted in the direction of self-goverment, the Mother Country could now well afford to allow her power and authority, as expressed through the Governor, to decline to the degree that was inevitable if responsible government were introduced; while Van Diemen's Land remained the Empire’s gaol, any substantial relaxation of control from London was not practicable.

When it was decided that Sir Henry Fox Young should succeed Denison in Tasmania, he was issued with a Commission appointing him Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief.113 Explaining the change to Denison, now Governor of New South Wales the Secretary of State said that when the last change had been made in the form of the Commissions, in 1851, it was already plain that Tasmania had become too important to be regarded in any sense a dependency of New South Wales; but the Secretary of State of the time, Earl Grey, had been a great advocate of the federation of the Australian colonies and had felt that there was sole advantage in retaining, in name at least, the supremacy of one colony over the others. But as no further steps had been taken in this direction, Sir George Grey felt that it was merely an inconvenience to keep the fiction in this form; nevertheless he was in favour of some form of union, and he therefore intended to retain the practice, begun with FitzRoy, of issuing the Governor of New South Wales with a Commission as Governor- General because, though it gave him no power to interfere in a colony's domestic affairs, it would place him ''in that position of superior rank which will entitle you to take the lead in any mutual arrangements to which the Colonies may hereafter come." 114

The Instructions issued to Fox Young along with his Commission are of importance in that they were the first intended for a Tasmanian Governor under responsible government. He was empowered to make laws, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, provided he observed the conditions of British Acts relating to the withholding of consent, the reservation for signification, and the disallowance of acts.115 He was instructed as to the form bills should take, and any bills presented to the Governor for the Royal Assent were to be reserved for the signification of the Royal pleasure, except in cases of urgency, when the Governor was authorised to assent in her name, at the same time transmitting full details home. He was to communicate his Instructions to the Executive Council, which could do no business unless summoned by his authority, and unless at least two members besides the Governor or other presiding member were present; the Governor was to preside, if possible. In the execution of any of his powers the Governor was to consult with the Executive Council and he could not act, except in minor matters, without their consent; but in matters of "an urgent and pressing" nature which would not admit of the delay of consultation, he could act on his own initiative. He had also a discretionary power to act in opposition to the Council’s advice, but in such an event he was to present the facts of the matter without delay to the Secretary of State. Full transcripts of the Council’s minutes were in any case to be sent home twice yearly.116 By the terms of his Commission,117 the Governor could appoint whom he chose to be members of the Executive Council, and they held office during pleasure; thus, in general, once a member, always a member; but it was understood, in analogy with the practice in

113 Grey-Fox Young, 2 Oct. 1854, No.1. GO1/94. 114 Grey-Denison, 2 Nov. 1854, No.62. GO1/94. 115 14 Vict., cap. 59; 5 & 6 Vict., cap. 76. 116 Fox Young’s Instructions, 8 Sep. 1855. CSD1/1/1. 117 Fox Young’s Commission, 8 Sep. 1855. Loc. cit.

xxi

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

the United Kingdom, that once a Councillor had lost the confidence of Parliament, he would resign, or at least discontinue the practical exercise of his functions.118 Their Commissions contained the provision that an Executive Councillor should not be absent from the Colony for more than two years, and thus the membership was to some extent 119 limited. In 1861 the Governor was authorised to suspend or remove Councillors. In the early years of responsible government the attending members of the Executive Council corresponded roughly to the Ministry.

By his Commission the Governor was authorised to suspend any officer holding office under a Royal Commission or Warrant; but the officer was to be given a chance to defend himself, and the documents should be laid before the Executive Council; if the officer were finally dismissed, the statements and the minutes of the Council were to be transmitted home; if the Governor considered the action justifiable, he could suspend immediately. He could grant a pardon to any offender convicted of any crime by any colonial court; in the case of the death sentence he was to call on the trial judge for a written report on the case, which was to be considered in the Executive Council in the presence of the judge. No such offender could be pardoned or reprieved without the advice of the Council, unless the Governor considered it expedient to do so, in which case he was to enter his reasons at length in the minutes. He could not remit penalties exceeding £50 without Royal consent; and he could not leave the Colony without Royal permission.

Just before the introduction of responsible govermnent a series of events, which became known as the Hampton case,120 demonstrated the possibility of collision between the Executive and the Legislature, and underlined the difference between the Governor’s Imperial and colonial responsibilities.

From May, 1855 certain charges of peculation and the misuse of convict labour and materials were made against senior members of the Convict Department; the Comptroller- General, Hampton, was himself involved. The Governor brought the matter before the Executive Council which found that in the main the charges were not justified, but that the regulations governing the use of convict labour and stores should be more strictly enforced. In July the case was reopened in Parliament, a select committee was appointed to investigate, and it moved an address to the Governor asking him to direct the attendance of officers and to require them to produce documents before it. In reply the Governor referred to his decisions in Council and informed the committee that they could not "with propriety be subjected to any local review, appeal or alteration by a non-judicial body like the local Legislature unless the Governor is so directed by her Majesty's Government, to whom application has already been made to signify a decision with the least possible delay." He pointed out that the Council should observe the distinction between matters colonial and Imperial; in the former they had every right to interfere, but in the latter, among which fell the Convict Department, they had none. He therefore declined to agree to the Council' s request.

118 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1867. 119 Newcastle-Young, 25 Apr. 1861, Sep. GO4/1. 120 For details of the case, see W. A. Townsley, The Struggle for Self-Government in Tasmania 1842-56. Hobart, 1951. Chap. VII.

xxii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Resentful of this attitude, the Council claimed full right of investigation into any matters affecting the welfare of the Colony and set up a select committee of enquiry and began to examine witnesses. It was when they called Hampton and he refused to attend either the committee or at the bar of the Council that the case entered its more sensational phases. The Speaker attempted to have him arrested for contempt, and called for the help of the civil power to execute the warrant; this the Governor refused, on the ground that the warrant was illegal; deadlock was thus reached: Hampton refused to heed the Council's summons, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was powerless to force him to do so. Hampton brought an action in the Supreme Court against the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms for assault and damages and, pending the outcome, all sides agreed that prorogation was the best solution. This the Governor did. The Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker's warrant was illegal and found for Hampton; the Council at first refused to accept this curtailment of its assumed rights, and decided to appeal to the Privy Council.

It was not until well into 1856 that the Governor heard from the Colonial Office; the Secretary of State supported the Council in its right to investigate the Convict Department, but he thought that the Governor had been right in proroguing the Council to avoid conflict. Two years later the Privy Council confirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, Parliament acquiesced and passed a bill defining its own privileges.

From the earliest days it had been the practice for the senior military officer in the Colony to administer the government in the absence of the Lieutenant-Governor.121 In 1869, because of the proposed withdrawal of Imperial troops from the Australian colonies, the Secretary of State addressed the Governors,122 directing them to obtain unofficially the opinions of the principal members of their Executive Councils on the best way of providing for the administration of the government in the event of the death, incapacity or absence of the Governor. In Tasmania, the Premier and the Colonial Secretary summed up the views of the Governor's advisers; their conclusion was that "it seems inadvisable to elevate to the position … any public Officer whose place in the Civil Service involves direct subordination to a Responsible Minister." With this the Governor agreed, as he did with their further opinion that the independence of the judges was secured by statute, and that they were held in high and general esteem. He therefore wrote that the Chief Justice appeared to be the officer best qualified by rank and independence to act if necessary as Administrator, and recommended the suggestion of his advisers that a warrant should be issued giving the Chief Justice the appropriate authority. The Premier's memorandum had pointed out that the likelihood of a vacancy occuring in the office of Chief Justice while he was acting as Administrator seemed too remote to have provision made for it; but the Governor thought that such an event was not impossible, and he suggested that the Puisne Judge might be included next in order in the warrant.123 The Secretary of State accordingly recommended to the Queen that the Chief Justice or Senior Judge for the time being should be authorised to administer the Goverment during the Governor's absence or inability, and sent the Governor a Warrant to that effect. But it was only a temporary and provisional measure to avoid inconvenience until more general and permanent

121 Newcastle-Gore Browne, 8 Sep. 1863. Sep. GO4/1. 122 Granville-Du Cane, 28 Sep. 1869, Circ., Conf. GO5/4. 123 Du-Cane-Kimberley, 6 Oct. 1870, Conf., No.44. GO27/1.

xxiii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

arrangements were made.124 This came about in 1874, when the Secretary of State sent the Governor a Commission for the Chief Justice or Senior Judge, embodying this principle.125

It is interesting that this decision completely reversed the instruction that was inserted in Darling's Commission as Governor of Van Diemen's Land, which positively stated that neither the Chief Justice nor any other judge of the Supreme Court could administer the Government.126 Despite later representations that it was inappropriate for the Chief Justice to have the tenure of a dormant commission as Administrator, the practice has continued to the present day.

Because of all the formalities attending the preparation of the Letters Patent issued to a new Governor it was often impossible for the Horne authorities to provide him with a Commission on his appointment; consequently it had been the practice often to give him a "minor Commission under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet", empowering him to act under his predecessor’s Commission and Instructions. But doubts had been raised whether such a minor commission really empowered the Governor to perform all acts appropriate to the office. To avoid these difficulties it was proposed, in 1875, to have the Queen issue Letters Patent to each colony, permanently constituting the office of Governor and providing that future appointments should be made by Commission under the Royal sign Manual and Signet. The Secretary of State asked the Governor for his and his Ministers' observations.127 Weld accordingly consulted his Government and the Chief Justice, and reported that he saw no objection to this course being followed in future.128 The amended form of the Letters Patent and Instructions reached the Colony in 1877,129 but advantage was not taken of them until the new Governor took up his appointment in 1880.130 The office was reconstituted under the Federal Constitution by Letters Patent of 29 October, 1900, and amended in respect of the Governor's power to appoint a Deputy during short absences by Letters Patent of 31 August, 1920.131

In 1887 the first Colonial Conference directed its attention to the Letters Patent and Instructions issued to Australian Governors, and as a result the Colonial Office remodelled these instruments. The British Law Officers observed that the clause empowering the Governor to act in opposition to the advice of the Executive Council involved a question of great constitutional importance, but having regard to the possibility that occasions might arise when Imperial or colonial interests would make it imperative for him to act in opposition to his Council, and bearing in mind that the Governor was instructed at once to refer the question home, they thought it would be unwise to omit the clause. The chief provisions of the revised Letters Patent enabled the Governor to make "grants and dispositions of lands" subject to the laws; constitute and appoint "all such Judges, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace and other necessary officers and Ministers" as were appointed by the Crown; grant pardons to informers leading to the conviction of

124 Kimberley-Du Cane, 10 Dec. 1870, No.32. CSD7/34/484. 125 Carnarvon-Weld, 16 Sep. 1874, General. GO7/1. 126 See note 54. 127 Carnarvon-Weld, 20 Oct. 1875, Circ., Secret. CSD10/36/637 128 Weld-Carnarvon, 20 Feb. 1876, No.4, Secret. GO27/1. 129 Carnarvon-Weld, 7 Apr. 1877, Secret. GO4/1. 130 Kimberley-Lefroy, 28 Aug. 1880. GO16/1; see also A. B. Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1928. 2 vols. p113, n. 131 Milner-Allardyce, 17 Sep. 1920. GO16/2.

xxiv

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

accomplices, free or conditional pardons, or any remission of sentence for any offence, provided that the condition should not be that the offender should leave the Colony; suspend any officer, so far as the Crowm could; exercise all the Crown's powers in summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament. The revised Instructions defined the Executive Council as the responsible advisers of the Governor, and required that he should be guided by their advice, except that he could act against it if he saw "sufficient cause"; laid down the classes of legislation to which he could not assent, and required that he should not give his assent to a bill unless he had had previous instructions from the Secretary of State to do so, unless it contained a clause suspending its operation until the Royal pleasure was known, or unless it was a case of "urgent necessity". The Governor must still use "his own deliberate judgement" in considering in the Executive Council whether an offender under sentence of death should be pardoned or reprieved.132

The Hunt case, of slight importance in itself, raised, during the several years it took to be settled, at least four questions of considerable importance in the constitutional position of the Governor and the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature. First, there was the question of the Governor’s power of remission of sentence, with or without the advice of the Executive Council; in turn this raised the question of whether the Governor- in-Council, deciding a case of remission, was or was not a kind of court of appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court; collaterally with these matters there was the question of the publication of the Governor's confidential despatches at the demand of Parliament; and finally, the question of the Governor's dependence on the advice of Ministers. Behind these matters ran the relationship, personal and official, between the Governor and the judges, particularly the Chief Justice, Sir Francis Smith.

Louisa Hunt was convicted before the Puisne Judge, Dobson, in July, 1873 on a charge of arson with the intent to defraud an insurance company; the Attorney-General was counsel for the defence of the prisoner. In November the Governor received a numerously and respectably signed petition praying for the remission of her sentence. He felt there was ground for enquiry, since the principal witness for the prosecution had subsequently been either implicated in or convicted of a felony; the Attorney-General advised the remission of the sentence on the advice of Ministers, and the Governor-in-Council approved.

On the general question of remission the Governor wrote that the Tasmanian practice had seemed to him too lenient, on many occasions he had felt it his duty to oppose the advice of Ministers, and he had made it a practice to confer with the Attorney-General on important or doubtful cases before dealing with them in the Executive Council; in the case of Louisa Hunt he had agreed to remission because he considered that a Governor should not refuse (except on the grounds of Imperial policy or other grave considerations) a strongly urged and unanimous request by his Ministers, backed by the Premier's assurance that he did not doubt the innocence of Hunt, and by the Attorney-General's that the evidence of the principal witness for the prosecution was worthless. Generally, he felt that a judge should prepare a memorandum on each case on which he passed sentence before the Governor should be asked to deliberate on a question of remission.133 The Attorney- General agreed that the judges' advice would be a help in reaching a decision but he felt that Ministers should not be bound by such advice. He considered that, in dealing with

132 Knutsford-Hamilton, 30 Apr. 1888, Conf., and encls. GO4/1 133 Governor-Ministers, 5 Jan. 1877. CSD10/69/1674.

xxv

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

cases of remission in the Executive Council, the Governor was "acting in some measure as a Court of Appeal, - the only Court of Appeal provided by the English law in criminal cases." He added that, in the case of Louisa Hunt, he had offered the Governor no advice,134 but on this point the Governor held that, though he understood that the Attorney- General "from a motive of delicacy", had left the decision to his colleagues, he was bound by, and answerable for, their action; and he, the Governor, would not have acceded to the remission had he not been satisfied that the Attorney-General had agreed with his colleagues.135

In both Houses of Parliament it was moved that the Ministry's advice was improper and tended to subvert the administration of justice, and the Government was defeated in the Assembly. Despite these reverses the Ministry upheld their action, in the face of strong press criticism.

The judges now revealed that they felt that an aggression had been made on the Supreme Court; the Chief Justice was convinced that the Governor had been advised that the Governor-in-Council sat as a criminal court of appeal in a judicial sense; the Governor denied that Ministers had tendered such advice, that he had received it, or that he would have followed it if he had.136

The Secretary of State, on this question of the "court of appeal", held that the judges were justified in their protest, in view of the Attorney-General's statement; he reminded the Governor that though, in exercising the Royal prerogative, he might remit a sentence, he did not therefore reverse it, nor in any way did he rectify a wrong. Also he felt that the judges were "technically right" in refusing to accept the assurance that the Attorney- General's view was not that of Ministers, for Ministers must take collective responsibility for the views expressed by one of their number. On the other hand he felt that the iudges had shown "needless heat" in that they might have accepted the Governor's assurance that the Executive Council did not claim to be a court of appeal. On the question of the procedure of remission, he did not agree that the judges should have to write a memorandum for the Governor's guidance; this would tend to confirm the idea that the Council was sitting as a court of appeal, because the Governor would either have to assume to review the judges' decision, or follow it in every case.137

The next question was the matter of the publication of the Governor's despatches. In October, 1877, the Legislative Council passed an Address to the Governor asking him to produce all his correspondence on the case.138 The Governor stated that he had no objection provided he was advised to do so by his Ministers; it was for them to decide whether such publication would be in the public interest.139 The Premier replied that Ministers felt that they should not interpose themselves between the Upper House and the Governor, since the latter had stated that he did not object to publication; the confidentiality of despatches was a matter for His Excellency's own judgement. Ministers

134 Attorney-General’s memorandum, 10 Jan. 1877. Loc. cit. 135 Governor-Ministers, 25 Jan. 1877. Loc. cit. 136 Weld-Carnarvon, 17 Mar. 1877, No.14 GO25/22. 137 Carnarvon-Weld, 29 Oct. 1877, No.29. CSD10/69/1674. 138 L. C. Address, 9 Oct. 1877. H. A. Journals, Vol. 33, Paper No.51. (cont.) 139 Governor-Ministers, 11, 15 Oct. 1877. Loc. cit.

xxvi

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

would not advise the Governor to make the despatches public, because such action would tend to revive controversy and promote fresh acrimony. They therefore declined to advise one way or the other.140 The Governor was not satisfied; he said that he was bound by constitutional practice and could not lay his despatches before Parliament unless it was on the responsibility of Ministers; they could not escape the responsibility of advising, and he felt that the question of producing or withholding these particular despatches was overshadowed "by the larger one of the constitutional position in regard to production of despatches and papers." He would not now lay the despatches before Parliament until he had received a reply from the Secretary of State.141

The judges were also pressing for the publication of the despatches, so that rumours reflecting on their integrity, said to be based on the despatches, might be set at rest. They felt that if the rumours were well-founded they might either vindicate themselves or submit to the alternative of removal from the Bench; if ill-founded, they might be dissipated.142 Weld, while denying that the despatches could be construed as reflecting on the judges' integrity, reminded them that "no Governor under Constitutional Government can lay despatches or papers (save only when he considers the rights of the Crown, or Imperial interests demand it,) before Parliament unless by advice of Ministers, or on their own responsibility for that act."143 The judges regretted that constitutional practice should be put before "the obligation to preserve the administration of justice unimpaired.''144 But, to the Secretary of State, the Governor wrote that he could not admit a right in anyone to demand the publication of despatches.145 And when asked by the Premier whether, if so advised by Ministers, he would now produce the despatches, he wrote that the belief that a Governor was bound to produce despatches if called upon to do so, notwithstanding reference to the Secretary of State, was new to him, and he could not accept it unless authorised to do so from London.146 But the Government did not press for publication, and a motion to that effect was defeated in the House.147

The Secretary of State saw two main issues: whether the Governor was bound to comply with a parliamentary demand for the production of non-confidential despatches and whether he could in such matters act independently of the advice of his Ministers. He agreed with Weld that it would be improper to lay before Parliament any despatches on a subject of controversy not affecting Imperial interests unless the Governor were so advised by Ministers; but no general rule had been laid down with respect to the obligation of the Governor to produce despatches when so advised, because each case of this kind would have to be decided on its merits; but, unless there were some strong reason against it (and reference to the Secretary of State would be such a reason), he should comply when advised to lay any non-confidential despatch before Parliament. In the present case he thought it would be desirable for the despatches to be produced, but he declined to interfere with the responsibility of Ministers.148

140 Premier-Governor, 24 Oct, 1877. Loc. cit. 141 Governor-Ministers, 29 Oct. 1877. Loc. cit. 142 Judges-Governor, 16 Nov. 1877. CSD10/69/1674. 143 Governor-Judges, 18 Nov. 1877. Loc. cit. 144 Judges-Governor, 20 Nov. 1877. H. A. Journals, Vol.33, Paper No.51. 145 Weld-Carnarvon, 26 Nov. 1877, No.55. CSD10/69/1674. 146 Governor-Ministers, 26 Nov. 1877. Loc. cit. 147 Weld-Carnarvon, 19 Dec. 1877. No.57. Loc. cit. 148 Carnarvon-Weld, 26 Jan. 1878, No.3. Loc. cit.

xxvii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

The Chief Justice criticised Weld in very strong terrns, and it was his opinion that he had merely devised the reference to the Secretary of State as an escape from a difficulty, had shifted to London a responsibility that belonged to himself, and had thus frustrated the will of Parliament.149

In the midst of this controversy the question of a Chief Justice becoming Administrator recurred. In December, 1877, Weld observed that the Secretary of State had agreed that there was much force in Sir Henry Parkes's representations in New South Wales "that there are grave objections on general grounds to the tenure of a dormant commission by a Chief Justice as Administrator …" With these objections Weld entirely concurred, and said that they were very much strengthened in Tasmania, where "a large and influential party" looked upon Sir Francis Smith as their political opponent, and the personal enemy of their leader (Reibey). "... this combined with his unmeasured hostility to myself personaIly ... & still more the means he uses, would render it inexpedient on public grounds for me to leave the Government or the private records of the Governor's Office in his hands." Weld therefore suggested that it would be far less objectionable for a President of the Legislative Council than for a Chief Justice to act in the place of the Governor.150

Again, in August, 1878 the Governor transmitted to London a memorial from several members of the Reibey Ministry, now out of office, praying that directions should be given to ensure that the Chief Justice should not become Administrator in the event that some person might be appointed in whom the Cabinet and the public could have confidence.151 Not unnaturally, the Secretary of State refused to give the Crown any such advice;152 he later wrote I trust that this controversy, which has been productive of credit to neither party will be entirely and finally dropped, and that I shall hear no more of it. Nothing can be more deplorable than that those gentlemen who, as Governor and Chief Justice, occupying the highest positions in the Colony, should be constantly appearing before the public as parties to a dispute conducted with heat and acrimony. :153

But the controversy was not yet ended. In May, 1879 the Ministry addressed a memorandum to the Governor in which they stated that, wishing to end the interminable correspondence and to restore good relations, they had deemed it expedient to advise the Governor not to lay later despatches and other papers concerning the case before Parliament; but on 6 May the Legislative Council passed an Address to the Governor asking him to lay before it all correspondence on the case that had not already appeared. This action left Ministers with no alternative but to advise the publication of all such papers. 154 The Governor agreed, as he had always favoured “the production of all such papers or despatches of public import at the request of Parliament”, and as in this case the production of part seemed to involve the production of the whole. He pointed out to

149 Chief Justice-Weld, 13 June 1878. Loc. cit. 150 Weld-Carnarvon, 24 Dec. 1877, Conf. GO27/1 151 Weld-Hicks Beach, 2 Aug 1878, No. 38 L.C. Journals, Vol.27, Paper 118. 152 Hicks Beach-Weld 29 Nov 1878 No.49 Loc. Cit. 153 Id., 2 Dec. 1878, No.51. Loc. cit. 154 Premier-Governor, 7 May 1879. L. C. Journals, Vol.27, Paper No.117.

xxviii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Ministers that in matters not involving Imperial interests or the prerogatives of the Crown, responsible ministers were answerable to Parliament for advising the production of despatches, but not for the views and statements therein expressed155. The correspondence was then published up to the end of May, 1879. 156

An echo of the case was heard in a confidential despatch from Weld to the Secretary of State in 1880. Having looked over his confidential despatches and observed certain passages relating to the Chief Justice “written in the heat of controversy”, he wished to record, lest his successor should gain a false impression, that he did not doubt Sir Francis Smith’s sincerity, nor that his course of action had been any less justifiable to him than his, Weld’s, had been to himself. 157

According to one authority, the “advent of federation deprived the office of practically all Imperial duties of any consequence and reduced the Governor to functions of more ceremonial than practical importance. “158But the powers of the office had so far dwindled since the days of benevolent despotism before responsible government that the changes from colonial status to that of a state of a dominion had but small effect on those that remained.

The question of the channel of a Governor’s correspondence with London, after the appointment of a Governor-General, was one that was briskly debated by two Federal Conventions, bound up as it was with the wider issue of the preservation of states’ rights. In the Convention of 1891 a resolution that the whole of a State Governor’s correspondence should pass through the Governor-General was passed, though there was strong dissent from some of the delegates; but the Constitutional Committee omitted the clause from the draft Constitution Bill; and at the 1897 Conference New South Wales made a strong attempt to have it reinserted. It was argued that the new Commonwealth should speak with one voice, not seven; and that it should appear to the outside world as a united country. The smaller States, particularly Tasmania, strongly opposed the move, claiming that it was an invasion of states’ rights, that it was quite unnecessary to send despatches of purely local application through the Governor-General or to receive the Secretary of State's despatches through him, and that it would unnecessarily reduce the status of the State Governor. The motion was defeated on the voices. 159

The Secretary of State, commenting on the arrangements proposed by some State Governments that a State Governor should have discretion as to which of his despatches should be sent as copies to the Governor-General, said that it was not desired in any way to subordinate State Governments to the Federal Government, but that it was important to make sure that despatches bearing directly or indirectly on general interests should be made known to the Federal Government; that it would be difficult to separate purely state from purely Federal business; and that where a matter concerned more than one State, the

155 Governor-Ministers, 8 May 1879. Loc. cit. 156 L. C. Journals, Vol.27, Paper No.118, and continuation. 157 Weld-Hicks Beach, 15 Mar. 1880, Conf. GO27/1. 158 A. B. Keith. op. cit., p.69. 159 “Despatches and Extracts from Debates of the Constitutional Convention on the Question of the Channel of Communication between the States and the Imperial Government”. GO19/4, See also Governor, South Aust.-Strickland, 19 Dec. 1906. GO19/3.

xxix

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Federal Government should be informed. The Secretary of State would reserve the right to consult the Governor-General before replying to a State Governor's despatch in his opinion involving Federal interests. 160

In 1914 the Governor of New South Wales defined the practice in this respect as follows: The Governor's discretion [in sending copies of despatches to or withholding them from the Governor-General] is applied so as to send all that may be useful to the Governor-General without recognising such habitual subjection to the Federal Authority as would not be reconcilable with the "sovereignty" of the State as interpreted by the High Court, or with a Governor's obligations under the State Constitution, and his duty to respect the advice of Ministers, unless he is taking steps to find others. 161

In practice this meant that copies of all numbered despatches were sent to the Governor- General. 162

Of a similar nature was the exchange of views which took place as to the course to be followed in recommending for honours. Havelock, the first Governor of Tasmania as a State, took exception to the proposal that recommendations for honours should go through the Governor-General. He submitted that the old practice under which Governors had exercised the power of recommending local people for honours had become a constitutional privilege, and that it should be continued on the ground that it was not modified by the Commonwealth Constitution. 163 The Secretary of State replied that, in expressing the view that such recommendations should come to him through the Governor- General it was not intended to derogate in any way from the functions of State Governors in making them; he thought it was important that a Commonwealth view should be taken; but as Tasmania and other States had objected to the proposal, he had decided that the State Governors should make their recommendations direct, and that they should send copies of their honours despatches to the Governor-General. 164

However, when a Premier's conference of 1908 resolved that the practice of recommendations “passing through the Governor-General” was objectionable, the Secretary of State stood firm. He conceded that the independence of the States in domestic matters could not be questioned, but in such a matter as the grant of an honour by the Crown the views of the Governor-General, the principal Representative of the Crown in Australia, cannot be left out of account. In practice, moreover, his personal judgment, unbiassed by local considerations, must necessarily be of value to the Secretary of State in determining between the respective claims of gentlemen recommended by the different Governors for the limited number of honours available at one time; and he

160 Chamberlain-Administrator, N.S.W., 21 June 1901, No.65. Encl. In Strickland (N.S.W.)-Harcourt, 3 Sep. 1914, No.134. GO19/4. 161 Strickland(N.S.W.)-Harcourt, 3 Sep. 1914, No.134. GO19/4. 162 Strickland-Hopwood (Under-Sec.), 27 May 1907. GO63/1. See also Chamberlain-Adminisrator, 1 Feb. 1901, Conf. Encl. GO4/2. And Administrator-Chamberlain, 6 Apr. 1901, Conf. GO27/1. 163 Havelock-Chamberlain, 21 Dec. 1901, Conf. GO27/1. 164 Chamberlain-Havelock, 14 Mar. 1902, Conf. GO4/2. See also Lyttleton-Strickland, 17 Apr. 1905, Secret. GO4/2; and Crewe-Strickland, 18 Aug. 1908, Conf., encl. GO4/2.

xxx

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

alone in Australia is in a position to take a comprehensive view of the Commonwealth as a whole.

Lord Crewe therefore decided that the present practice should be continued, but that agreement between Governors and the Governor-General be sought and, if not found, that it should rest with the Secretary of State to decide before submitting a name to the King. 165

The constitutional crisis of 1914 was of more than local importance in defining the powers and position of a State Governor under responsible government. It brought from the Secretary of State a definitive pronouncement on the nature of a Governor’s relationship with his Ministers.

When the Solomon Government asked the Governor (Ellison Macartney) for a dissolution as a result of what would have been a successful no-confidence motion, Macartney wrote to the Leader of the Labour Opposition, John Earle, indicating that he would be prepared to ask him to form an administration, one condition being that an immediate dissolution would take place. 166 Earle accepted this condition, among others, and formed a Ministry; then, on second thoughts, he informed the Governor that the condition he had laid down raised a grave constitutional issue not only for Tasmania but for all the Dominions. Since he had a majority and had given his assurance that he could carry on the administration he submitted that the exaction of such a pledge was contrary to the principles and practice of parliamentary government. The power of dissolution should be exercised only on Ministers’ advice and, though his Commission gave the Governor power to act in opposition to such advice, it would be "practically impossible" in the case of a dissolution and could only be justified when there existed some "very extraordinary cause." And the power of dissolution should not be exercised when there was a possibility that the Governor could find a Ministry that could carry on, and particularly not when there was no vital party question at issue. Earle therefore submitted that he "should not be called into office only to have a proceeding forced on him which he thinks improper and therefore cannot advise.” 167

The Governor pointed out that he had given Earle and his colleagues "the fullest opportunity" to consider his conditions; they had accepted, and therefore the conditions had now become "part of their responsibility", even though Earle had differed from himself as to their necessity before accepting them. A Governor had to consider a dissolution solely with reference to the general interests of the peopIe and not from a party standpoint and, he insisted, he was entitled to stipulate any conditions he thought essential to the public interest. He maintained that a Governor must exercise a much wider discretion "in the Colonies" than the Sovereign in similar circumstances in Britain. 168

The House of Assembly then passed an Address to the effect that the Governor's conduct in exacting a promise to advise a dissolution irrespective of its wishes was unconstitutional, and asked that the question be submitted to the Secretary of State. Earle,

165 Crewe-Strickland, 18 Aug. 1908, Conf. GO4/2 166 Macartney-Earle, 3 Apr. 1914. PD1/284/70/5. 167 Earle-Macartney, 7 Apr. 1914, Loc. cit. 168 Macartney-Earle, 8 Apr. 1914, Loc. cit.

xxxi

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

in view of this decision, informed the Governor that Ministers still refused to advise him to grant a dissolution. 169

The Secretary of State gave his ruling in June. He agreed with the House of Assembly's Address that the Governor's action had been unconstitutionaI. All the Governor's public acts had to be supported by ministerial responsibility, and no personal responsibility attached to the Governor for such acts. He therefore could not dissolve the Legislature except on the advice of Ministers, though he could refuse to accept such advice. Either Ministers would acquiesce in the Governor's action, in which case they must accept responsibility for it, or they would leave him to find new Ministers who would do so. The Governor was "no more entitled to impose on an incoming Ministry as a condition of admitting them to office, that they should advise a dissolution of the Legislature than that they should tender any other specified advice." Such a course would mean the Governor's claiming a personal responsibility which did not attach to him. At the same time, Earle accepted both conditions and office "and thus must be held to have accepted for the time being full responsibility for your action." He remained thus responsible until the Ministry determined to advise in the contrary sense, when the policy of dissolution ceased to be authorised by Ministerial advice but became a matter of your personal opinion, that is to say, no constitutional means existed of giving effect to it without another change of views on the part of Ministers or another change of Ministry. 170

The episode was summed up by A. B. Keith as follows: Mr Earle's conduct in accepting office and then breaking his undertaking was politically beneath contempt but constitutionally the Governor could only consider whether he could find other Ministers if he insisted on getting rid of his untrustworthy Minister. The answer probably was that he could not, and, that being so, the Governor should simply have expressed his opinion of his Premier's conduct and left matters at that, without giving publicity to one of the dark sides of Australian public life. 171

This case to some extent added precedent to a pronouncement by the Secretary of State in 1908 on the dependence of a Governor of the advice of his Ministers. It had been asked by the Governor of Queensland whether a Governor should refer home for instructions if he should feel difficulty in acting on his Ministers' advice. The Secretary of State based his reply on the distinction between Imperial and local interests; in the case of the former, it was clearly requisite to consult the British Government, "inasmuch as on them eventually ... rests the duty of safeguarding Imperial interests …." On the other hand, In local matters the Governor clearly must follow the advice of his Ministers, unless he believes that, in the event of his Ministers resigning, or of his dismissing them, he can find other Ministers adequately supported by public opinion. In such a case it would be most undesirable for the Governor to refer to the Secretary of State.

169 Earle-Macartney, 15 Apr. 1914, Loc. cit. 170 Harcourt-Macartney, 5 June 1914, Loc. cit. 171 A. B. Keith, op. cit., p.171.

xxxii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

He should refuse to accept ministerial advice only if he felt such action would be supported by public opinion; in domestic matters the Secretary of State could not give advice, because of his ignorance of local circumstances, and because in such matters he would be anxious to avoid the appearance of interference. 172

Just before Federation became a fact, the Secretary of State wrote confidentially to the Governors of the participating Colonies asking them to consult their Ministers as to the future arrangements for the governorship of the States. As he understood Clause 106 of the Constitution Bill, the Colonies wished that the State Governors would "continue to be persons nominated and commissioned by the Queen to represent Her Majesty in the different States" and that the States would ''still wish to secure the advantage of having at the head of affairs Governors who have had no association with local party politics and will be above suspicion of partiality, and who by their presence in the Capitals of the States will emphasize and promote the close connection of the States with the Mother country." He pointed out that under the Constitution the Governors would be divested of few of their present powers and duties, but he foresaw difficulties in obtaining suitable men unless the States agreed "that some change may be made in the understanding with regard to these appointments." He referred to the inadequacy of salaries, and to the probability that the "great office of Governor-General" would by comparison make it even more difficult than at present to induce suitable men to accept office and he hoped that the State would agree that it was necessary to make the salary sufficiently high that a Governor would not be obliged to supplement it from his private purse. 173

The Premier, N. E. Lewis, was in touch with other colonies on this question; in his report to the Governor he said that Ministers were agreed that it was desirable that the Governor of the State should continue to be nominated by the Crown "at any rate for some years after the establishment of the Commonwealth". The alternatives would be either to appoint the Chief Justice or senior judge, or to appoint the Governor from "amongst those in our midst." The Chief Justice or senior judge already held a dormant commission, and it was felt to be of doubtful value to make the arrangement permanent. And "in the opinion of your Ministers it is not desirable that the judiciary and the Executive should be permanently associated." The second alternative would be obviously unsatisfactory, as it would involve personal canvassing and political intrigue. 174 To the reasons brought forward against the first alternative the Governor, in transmitting this report, added that to amalgamate permanently the office of Governor and Chief Justice would seriously impair the efficiency of the Bench, in that the judicial services of that officer would never be available in capital cases. 175

The Premier had also referred to a recent resolution of the House of Assembly to the effect that, when a vacancy occurred in the Governorship, the salary should be "largely reduced"; and also to the conclusions of the Premiers' Conference of January, 1899 that the appointments should remain vested with the British Goverrment, but that their salaries should be reduced, though they shouId not be expected to draw on their private resources. Ministers therefore proposed to submit to Parliament a bill to the effect that the salary

172 Crewe-Strickland, 16 Sep. 1908, Secret. GO4/2. 173 Chamberlain-Gormanston, 27 Oct. 1899. Conf. GO4/2. 174 Premier-Governor, 3 May 1900. PD1/130/110. 175 Gormanston-Chamberlain, 5 May 1900. Conf. GO27/1.

xxxiii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

should be fixed at £3000. 176 The Governor however pointed out to the Secretary of State that the present salary of £3500 was inadequate, and surgested £4000. 177

The Secretary of State expressed his satisfaction that the States should agree the appointment should remain vested with the British Government. But if Governors were not to be expected to supplement their salaries from private means, he doubted whether £3000 a year would enable them to maintain the position with proper dignity. 178 For the present the salary remained at £3500, but in 1904 Parliament made an effort drastically to reduce it This moved the Secretary of State to urge that a general policy should be settled at a Premiers' Conference; he sympathised with the wishes of States to reduce expenses of this kind after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but he made it clear that the practice of appointing Governors from Great Britain could not be continued if any further reduction were made. 179 The Premiers' Conference of 1905 resolved that the appointment should remain vested with the British Government, and that there should be no further reduction. 180 Nevertheless, in Tasmania the salary dropped to £2750.

When, in 1913, the West Australian Legislative Assembly passed a motion favouring the appointment of the Governor from among the citizens of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of State indicated that he would adhere to an opinion expressed by Lord Crewe in October, 1908: that no change in the present system would be entertained unless it were applied to all States, and until public opinion in Australia was overwhelmingly demonstrated in its favour. In Tasmania, Ministers reiterated the Premier's arguments of 1899. 181

The Tasmanian Labour Party had, since 1903, had a plank in its platform either to abolish State Governors or to have them appointed from among Australians. In 1912 a Labour notice of motion was introduced in the House of Assembly to declare the position of Governor vacant after the retirement of the present incumbent. 182 When in 1920 it was announced that Allardyce was to be appointed, the non-Labour Government was censured on the ground that it showed indecent haste, considering that a Labour motion remained on the notice paper proposing the abolition of the office. 183

Financial reasons and matters of principle combined to put the office on insecure foundations during the twenties and early thirties. Men who had no private fortune could not keep up the position largely because, though Governnent House was maintained by the Government, its size required such a large staff. In 1921 Allardyce retired within two years, making no secret of the fact that the reason he could not carry on was that his salary was too small. 184 Various schemes were put forward to make the best of what was then considered the vast white elephant of Government House: that it should be a hospital; 185

176 Premier-Governor, 3 May 1900. PD1/130/110. 177 Gormanston-Chamberlain, 23 Jul. 1900. Conf. GO27/1. 178 Chamberlain-Gormanston, 5 May 1900. Conf. GO4/2. 179 Lyttleton-Strickland, 2 Dec. 1904, No.35. GO1/36. 180 Premier-Governor, 21 Mar. 1905. PD1/180/110. 181 PD1/261/110/8, passim. 182 Daily Post, 2 Dec. 1912. 183 World, 21 Jan. 1920. 184 Governor-Premier, 30 Aug. 14 Nov. 1921. PD1/350/110/26. Mercury, 8 Feb. 1922. 185 PD1/382/110/12, passim.

xxxiv

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

that it should be used for the University; 186 that it should become Parliament House. 187 It was the opinion of the Administrator, Sir Herbert Nicholls, that it reduced the State's chances of obtaining the services of Englishmen, and the Labour Government agreed that it was quite unsuitable. 188

In September, 1920 a Labour motion, that the office of Governor should be discontinued and that the Governor-General should be empowered to appoint a "Lieutenant-Governor of local standing" at the end of the present Governor's term, was lost in the Assembly on the Speaker's casting vote. 189 The motion was repeated in November, 190 and during the course of the debate the Premier revealed that the present Governor, Allardyce, would not be returning from his leave. The second part of the motion, relating to the Governor- General's appointment of a Lieutenant-Governor, was omitted, and the motion was passed with the help of three non-Labour members. 191 A similar motion, adding that the Chief Justice should be appointed Administrator, was debated in the Legislative Council in December, and was thrown out on the voices. 192

Again, in October, 1922 a Labour motion intended to indicate that it was the wish of the House "to abolish the practice of importing Governors", was agreed to on the voices, with a non-Labour Goverment in power. 193 Soon after a Labour Government came to power in 1923 the Premier, J. A. Lyons, in order to test the feeling of the House, moved a motion which, if agreed to, would indicate that an Administrator or a Lieutenant-Governor was favoured: if rejected, that an Imperial appointment was desired. The motion passed. 194 The Legislative Council again disagreed, 195 but in conference with the House decided not to insist on its amendment. 196 However, in March, 1924 the Council passed an Address to the Crown to the effect that an appointment to the office of Governor should be made; 197 the Address was transmitted to the Assembly where, though the Premier said he was definitely opposed to an overseas appointment, it was passed on the Speaker's casting vote.198

Following this decision the Government cabled the Secretary of State to the effect that Ministers regarded unfavourably the appointment of a local man because experience showed that the smallness of the community and local influences caused friction, especially in social matters. They preferred the entire abolition of the office, with the delegation of the functions to the Chief Justice for the time being. Failing this the

186 The News, 25 Sep. 1924. 187 Mercury, 24, 25 Sep. 1924. 188 Ibid., 13 Dec. 1923. 189 Report of H.A. proceedings, 15 Sep. 1920. Mercury Parliamentary Reprints. 190 Report of H.A. proceedings, 9 Nov. 1921. Loc. cit. 191 Mercury, 1 Dec. 1921. Encl. In Allardyce-Churchill, 12 Dec. 1921, No.44. GO34/1. 192 Report of L.C. proceedings, 8 Dec. 1921. Mercury Parliamentary Reprints. 193 World, 27 Oct. 1922. 194 Report of L.C. proceedings, 24 Jan. 1924. Mercury Parliamentary Reprints. 195 Report of H.A. proceedings, 26 Feb. 1924. Loc. cit. 196 Report of H.A. proceedings, 5 Mar. 1924. Loc. cit. 197 Report of L.C. proceedings, 13 Mar. Loc. cit. 198 Report of H.A. proceedings, 14 Mar. 1924. Loc. cit.

xxxv

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Governnent asked that the Royal pleasure be exercised in the direction of the appointment of an Imperial Governor. 199

The Colonial Office, during this period of contention, had adopted the attitude that it would not send out a successor to Allardyce until a formal invitation was received from the Government. 200 Now, following this somewhat equivocal gesture, it was apparently decided to accede to the request, but to soften the blow by appointing a man of similar political sympathies as those of the Government. 201 W. S. Royce, a Labour M.P., was strongly rumoured to have been approached, but he died, it was said, en route to Downing Street to announce his acceptance. 202 Sir James O'Grady, another Labour M.P. was then approached and, being acceptable to the Government, was appointed. 203

Meanwhile, because it had “been apparent for some time that interregnums are of comparatively frequent occurrence", the Government had asked the Administrator, Sir Herbert Nicholls, to approach the Secretary of State with a request that he should be appointed Lieutenant-Governor. 204 The Secretary of State complied. 205

Tasmania had not been alone in this controversy about the office of Governor. In August, 1924 it was reported that the subject was likely to become one of concerted action by the State Premiers, with a view to giving States a more direct influence in the appointment. There were said to be three categories of opinion: the largest body seemed to favour a continuance of the present system; a smaller section wanted the introduction of the Canadian system, providing for the appointment of Lieutenant-Governors by the Governor-General. The left-wing section were not agreed; an extremist group wanted to abolish the office altogether, while others wanted incumbents selected from among Australians or by election. 206

In March, 1925 the Queensland Labour Premier (Gillies) sounded out the Tasmanian Government, and referred to the assurance that Milner had given E.G. Theodore in 1920, that as soon as "the majority" of Australian States could agree to a change in the system, the British Government would not stand in the way. 207 When the same Premier in July indicated that five of the six mainland States intended to present a jointly signed memorial urging that future State Governors should be Australian citizens, 208 Lyons replied that his Government advocated the eventual abolition of State Governorships as they existed; that they preferred an Administrator to carry out the necessary constitutional duties; but pending such a change they associated themselves with the five Labour Governments in their statement of policy. 209

199 Undated draft cable, c. 14 Mar. 1924. PD1/391/110/5. 200 The Times, 29 Jan. 1924. PD1/391/110/1. 201 Various press clippings of 23 June 1924. Loc. cit. 202 Melbourne Sun, 25 June 1924. Loc. cit. 203 See A. B. Keith, op. cit., p.72. 204 Premier-Lieutenant-Governor, 23 Jul. 1924. PD1/391/110/11. 205 Amery-Nicholls, 3 Dec. 1924. Misc. PD1/406/110/2. 206 London Morning Post, 21 Aug. 1924. PD1/391/110/5. 207 Premier, Q-Premier, Tas., 9 Mar. 1925. PD1/406/110/11. 208 Id., 23 Jul. 1925. Loc. cit. 209 Premier, Tas.-Premier, Q., 28 Jul. 1925. Loc. cit.

xxxvi

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

The Lang Government of New South Wales drew up the memorial and forwarded it to Tasmania in August. It stated that the majority of the Governments of the Australian States had at one time or another approached the British Government with a view to having Australians appointed; referred to Milner's assurance; and requested that, on the expiration of the term of each of the present State Governors, he might be succeeded by an Australian appointed by Letters Patent by the Crown. 210 The Tasmanian Government signed the memorial and reiterated its policy. 211 All other States except Victoria (with a non-Labour Government) signed the memorial which was then forwarded to the Secretary of State; he promised in October that it would receive consideration.212 The Governor, in commenting on the move, emphasised that it had no reflection on himself; "My own Premier was particularly kind in his observations about myself." 213

The decision of the British Government was received in March, 1926. The Secretary of State endorsed Milner's attitude that the matter was "for Australians themselves to decide."

But he said that if the Premiers’ proposal was adopted there should be no doubt that Australian opinion generally was in favour of the change "and so strongly in favour of it that subsequent demand for its reversal is not likely to arise." The British Government could not believe that this was the case; on the contrary it was manifest to them that there was very strong objection to the proposal; and that since Australian opinion was "so acutely divided" there could be no assurance that if the proposal were acceded to it would be regarded as a final settlement. Therefore the British Government had decided that there was not sufficient justification for abandoning the existing system under which the field of choice of Governor was unlimited. 214

Victoria was the protagonist for the status quo and perhaps the most informed and complete statement of the advantages of retaining British appointments was made by the Attorney-General of the Allan Government (F. W. Egglestone). This probably was an important factor in the British Governments decision. 215

In Tasmania, from July, 1927, the Governor's salary was increased to £3000; 216 but it was on considerations of finance rather than of principle that led the non-Labour McPhee Government in 1930 to decide not to fill the position after the end of O’Grady’s term; they came to an agreement with the Lieutenant-Governor to repeal that section of the Governor’s Salary Act, 1887 which provided that the officer provisionally administering the Government should receive half the Governor’s salary; instead he would receive an allowance of £750. 217 The Chief Justice made it quite clear that he was under no obligation to continue in office should he find that it resulted in financial loss to him. He suggested that an attempt should be made "to find someone possessed of a substantial private income, who will accept the office of Lieutenant-Governor." 218 The bill passed; 219

210 Premier, N.S.W.-Premier, Tas., 1 Aug. 1925. Loc. cit. 211 Premier-Premier’s Secretary, 28 Aug. 1925. Loc. cit. 212 Premier, N.S.W.-Premier, Tas., 14 Oct. 1925. Loc. cit. 213 O’Grady-Amery, 2 Oct. 1925, Conf. PD1/406/110/20. 214 Amery-O’Grady, 3 Mar. 1926, No.17. Loc. cit. 215 Egglestone’s memorandum. Encl. in Stradbroke (Vic.)-Amery, 10 Nov. 1925, No.25. Loc. cit. 216 PD1/435/110/4, passim. 217 Premier-Lieutenant-Governor, 9 Dec. 1930. PD1/477/110/8. 218 Lieutenant-Governor-Premier, 10 Dec. 1930. Loc. cit.

xxxvii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

by its means the Government hoped to save £3000 a year, and the Premier asked the Dominions Office to leave the question of appointing a successor to O’Grady in abeyance for the time being. 220

In April, 1933, after protracted negotiations by the McPhee Government which led to some kind of agreement that he would supplement his allowances by private means, the Dominions Office appointed Sir Ernest Clark to be Governor of the State. 221

219 21 Geo. V, No.73 220 Premier, Tas.-Premier, Vic., 23 Jan. 1931. PD1/490/110/2. See also Mercury, 18 Oct. 1930. 221 Governor-Premier, 25 Sep. 1933. PD1/510/110/28.

xxxviii

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Note On Transfers

The records described in this Section of the Guide came into the custody of the State Archives at various times, as follows: Early in 1910, from the Public Record Office, London: GO33. On 17 May, 1922, from Government House, Hobart: GO1/1-102, GO2, 3, 17, 21. On 6 December, 1951, from the Supreme Court, Hobart: GO44. On 23 March, 1952, from Government House, Hobart: GO22, 23, 25/1-6, 25/8-26, 26/1-2, GO27-32, 37-8, 46, 51, 52/2-5, 52/7-13, GO54-9, 62, 64-7, 69. On 28 June, 1954, from Government House, Hobart: GO25/13, GO1/18/1. On 17 December, 1956, from the Supply and Tender Department, Hobart: GO33/40/1. On 1 July, 1958, from Government House Hobart: GO1/103-48, GO4-16, 18-20, 24, 34-6, 39/8-9, GO40-2, 47-50, 63, 68. On dates unknown, but before 1950: GO25/7, GO26/3-4, GO37, 39/1-7, GO43 45, 52/1, 52/6, GO53.

xxxix

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

PART 1 – Despatches, 1818-1932

As early as 1825 the Colonial Office laid down the procedures to be followed by Governors in writing despatches: they were to be numbered, beginning a new series every new year; they were to be endorsed with details of the colony, date, Governor, number of enclosures, and a short summary of the contents; private and confidential despatches were not to be numbered, but marked "separate". As far as possible each despatch was to be confined to a single subject, and at the beginning of each year the Governor was to send home a list of his despatches of the previous year. 222 A duplicate of each despatch, with full enclosures, had to be sent on a vessel different from that carrying the original. 223

These directions were consolidated in the Rules and Regulations for the Colonial Service, the first edition of which was issued in 1837; now it was provided, in addition, that the despatches should be addressed to the Secretary of State alone, and that they should be written in a large and distinct hand on folio paper of uniform size with adequate margins. In 1835 the Secretary of State had indicated that henceforth on the arrival of each despatch from a Governor the Colonial Office would address him a despatch the sole purpose of which would be to acknowledge its receipt. 224 It is not clear how far this practice was followed, but this was the origin of the schedules which were later regularly exchanged between the Colonial Office and the Colonies; the Colonial Regulations of 1837 directed that a schedule should accompany each mail, listing the despatches and repeating the information given by the dockets, with the name of the ship and the date of its departure. The 1867 edition contained a provision for the listing of all despatches received, instead of the separate acknowledgment of each. Until 1870 duplicates "of all important" despatches were required from all colonies to the east of the Cape; then it was decided that, with the great improvements in postal and telegraphic communications the practice was no longer necessary, except in extraordinary circumstances. 225

The instruction issued to Sorell concerning the preservation of despatches was repeated in 1827, "numerous instances" having been brought to the Secretary of State's notice of persons in the colonies "having succeeded in obtaining officially and by other means which I cannot imagine, Copies of Dispatches or Instructions..." The Secretary of State's despatches were intended exclusively for the use of the Governor, and they must be filed and preserved for his successor; a Governor was not at liberty to allow copies of them to be taken by any person except with the Secretary of State's permission. 226 The Colonial Regulations made special reference to the need for providing continuing safe custody of the Governor's inward and copies of his outward despatches and, in 1840, when Franklin had been obliged to write home for a copy of one of Arthur's despatches, the Secretary of State took the opportunity of observing that "Dispatches on the Public Affairs of the Government must be regarded as Public Records, to be preserved in the Archives of the Colony..."; not as private communications, the property of the individual.227 Again, in 1875, Governor Weld had occasion to observe that many important despatches, after being

222 Hay-Darling, 26 Jul. 1825, Circ. H.R.A., I, xii, 38. 223 Bathurst-Darling, 20 Feb. 1826.Ibid., 173. See also Huskisson-Arthur, 16 May 1828, No.33. GO1/7. 224 Aberdeen-Arthur, 1 Feb. 1835, Circ. GO1/20. 225 Granville-Du Cane, 8 Mar. 1870, Circ. CSD7/39/649. 226 Huskisson-Arthur, 31 Dec. 1827, Circ. GO1/5. 227 Russell-Franklin, 27 Jan. 1840, No.8. GO1/37.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group referred to Ministers, were mislaid and never returned to the Private Secretary, and he took measures to overcome the situation. 228

The importance with which despatches, and particularly confidential despatches, were regarded by the British Government is well brought out by the exchanges that took place concerning the latter. In March, 1828 Arthur received a separate despatch in which the Secretary of State invited communications of a semi-private nature on matters which, "although interwoven with the best interests of the Colony, might not be conveniently introduced into official Despatches destined to be preserved as Records, referred to the respective Departments of the Government." Arthur already enjoyed a semi-personal and confidential correspondence with the Under-Secretaries, particularly R. W. Hay, and he thus had an advantage which his successors lacked; for, in 1835, the Secretary of State laid it down that there were serious objections to the practice. He admitted the right of Governors to communicate with him privately and confidentially, but refused to recognise communications made to his Under-Secretaries. 229 The Colonial Regulations of 1837 confirmed the right of Governors to communicate with the Secretary of State "in a more unreserved manner than a public despatch would admit with propriety or convenience to the public interest." Such despatches would not be considered or recorded as public documents "unless some urgent occasion should render its production necessary in the absence of a more public report." The 1843 edition added the proviso that it would rest with the Secretary of State to decide whether or not such despatches were to be treated as public documents, and in the 1867 edition it was stressed that care should be taken that the regular series contained enough information to make it unnecessary to use the confidential despatches in answering questions about colonial affairs.

The question of the publication of despatches containing confidential material arose during Denison’s term. He pointed out that publication of facts and opinions about the inhabitants of the Colony was likely to have a bad effect, and suggested that all such passages should be omitted.230 Denison's despatch crossed one from the Secretary of State on the same subject, which had apparently been raised by other Governors. He referred to the evils which had occasionally resulted from the publication of despatches, and to the increasing pressure from Members of Parliament for their production. He said it was difficult to decide whether to withhold certain despatches, and to discriminate between what should and what should not be published. He therefore directed that the numbered series should be confined to publishable matters, and that all others should be communicated in confidential despatches. This did not mean that all numbered despatches would automatically go before Parliament, or that confidential despatches would never be published; the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion. But Governors should make their numbered despatches full enough to make resort to the confidential series unnecessary. 231

In 1864 the Secretary of State had occasion to refer to the disadvantage under which he sometimes found himself through not possessing "officially" the same amount of information about the Colony that men commercially and otherwise connected with it

228 Weld-Ministers, 7 Jan. 1875. CSD10/58/1380. 229 Glenelg-Arthur, 27 Oct. 1835, Circ. GO1/20. See also Glenelg-Franklin, 18 June, 1837, Private. GO1/26. 230 Denison-Grey, 25 Sep. 1849, No.138. GO33/68. 231 Grey-Denison, 15 June 1849, Circ. Private. (received 20 Oct. 1849). GO1/73.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group naturally had. He realised that the advances made by the colonies in the management of their own affairs since the introduction of responsible government had made it "if not unnecessary, at all events much less frequent for a Governor to refer for the consideration of the Home Government many questions deeply affecting the good government of the colonies," but nevertheless he felt that he should be kept fully informed. He therefore directed that the Governor should furnish a confidential report on colonial affairs by every mail during the session of its Parliament, or at intervals of two or three months while it was in recess. 232 This practice was thereafter followed with variations according to the Governor of the day. Governors were reminded of the importance of the series in 1892, and the Secretary of State suggested that they should be made monthly, because of the increasing attention being paid to colonial affairs in Great Britain. 233 In 1896 the new Secretary of State felt that a quarterly report, in the form of a secret despatch, was sufficient. 234

In 1905 the Secretary of State permitted the Governor to write to him privately on matters of which he might not care to leave a record behind him for example, personal allusions to officers who might have access to his remarks after his departure. 235 But in 1917 Long reviewed the question. While he acknowledged that there were occasions when private and personal telegrams might be the best and indeed the only proper form of correspondence, he saw a risk that they might sometimes take the place of official but secret communications which would remain in the Colonial Office for the benefit of future Secretaries of State; it was his custom to take his "private and personal" papers away with him when he left office. He admitted the difficulty of defining the type of correspondence that should be thus carried on, but suggested that, before marking a communication "private and confidential" a Governor should consider whether the matter bore a relation to matters of administration, so that a Secretary of State should have access to it; and whether the category "secret" would not suffice. He reiterated the principle that, whereas a Governor would not allow a private and personal telegram to be seen by any but himself and his Private Secretary, the Secretary of State always reserved the right to cause a communication such as this from a Governor to be recorded in the secret archives of the Colonial Office. 236

As a rule, under responsible government, all despatches were referred to a Governor's advisers; the secret and confidential of course in confidence. But some secret despatches might be intended for the Governor's eye alone, and in no case could the Governor publish despatches without permission; the Secretary of State while reserving the right to publish, never did so without consultation. 237

232 Newcastle-Gore Browne, 5 Feb. 1864, Sep. GO4/1. 233 Knutsford-Hamilton, 9 Mar. 1892, Circ. Secret. GO5/19. 234 Chamberlain-Gormanston, 21 Feb. 1896, Circ. Secret. GO5/20 235 Lyttleton-Strickland, 17 Apr. 1905. Secret. GO4/2. 236 Long-Newdegate, 19 Jul. 1917, Secret. Dominions No.463. GO5/26. 237 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1867. See also A. B. Keith, op. cit., p.77.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

A. - Despatches received

DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE GO1 FOR THE COLONIES 29 Aug. 1823-28 Dec. 1932. 114 vols and 34 bundles. 29'.

The despatches in this series were bound more or less contemporaneously into volumes until March, 1860. No distinctions were observed between the various categories of despatches, and all were bound in one chronological series. However, from April, 1860 the various categories have been separated from each other, and this series continues with the numbered despatches only. In any case by far the greater part of the despatches received up to 1860 were of the numbered series, and the exceptions (circulars, separate despatches and other categories) are relatively few. It would therefore not be far from the truth to entitle this series "Numbered despatches received from the Secretary of State."

The series begins with despatches written to Col. Arthur before his departure from England. Despatches to his predecessors are not held in the original in the State Archives, but are available either on microfilms of Public Record Office series or in the printed series Historical Records of Australia (see Appendix E).

It is not always clear to contemporary readers why certain subjects were dealt with in certain categories of despatches, and there is no hard and fast rule for deciding in which category to search for a particular subject. But the numbered series, the main branch of the stream of material which flowed from the Colonial Office to the Colony, was intended to deal with all the normal and routine matters; there was no objection on the part of the Home Government to the publication of these despatches, and it was normal for them to be communicated immediately to the Governor's advisers (see the introductory note to this Part).

The numbering of these despatches is inconsistent until 1848. With a few minor exceptions, all Secretaries of State began a new series on their appointment; some also began a new series with every new year, while others carried the same series over several years or even over the whole period of their office. The practice of beginning a new series for a new Governor also became standard from 1847.

DESPATCES RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE GO2 FOR THE COLONIES 28 Aug. 1823-31 Oct. 1835. 11 vols. 1' 10".

The practice of a Governor’s communicating direct with the Under-Secretary grew up during Sorell's period as Lieutenant-Governor, and under Arthur became a useful channel of communication (see the introductory note to this Part). It was discontinued by the Secretary of State in 1835, though communications of a minor nature are to be found in GO16.

The bulk of these despatches take the form of recommendations of settlers for free grants of land or other Government favour; others confine themselves to matters of detail, supplementing the numbered despatches of GO1. No distinction was observed by the Colonial Office in classifying the Governor's despatches to the Under-Secretary, and

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group duplicates are to be found bound with despatches to the Secretary of State in GO33. Other copies will be found in GO52/3.

DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY AND GO3 UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE RELATING TO ADVANCES TO EMIGRANTS 15 Nov. 1831-12 Dec. 1834. 1 vol. 4".

This small series results from a scheme of assisted emigration to the colonies inaugurated by the Home Government as part of a policy of planned colonisation; it was intended to replace the old method of inducing settlers to come to the colonies by offering free grants. The Emigration Commission, set up by the British Government, issued promissory notes to emigrants, to be exchanged on arrival in the Colony for a bond for an amount payable at a later date. The migrant signed the promissory note at the port of embarkation and the order for payment was handed over to the ship’s master who presented it to the colonial authorities on the delivery of his passengers, as his claim against the cost of conveying the immigrant. 238

The series was commenced by the Secretary of State "in order to preserve a due distinction in the directions which you shall receive for the expenditure of Money in the encouragement of Emigration”. 239 The despatches authorise the Lieutenant-Governor to make advances to ships' masters and agents in respect of immigrants, and give particulars of the persons concerned; name, trade, age and family are included. Occasionally they enclose associated papers. An index to the 400-odd families that arrived under this scheme has been compiled.

SEPARATE, SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL DESPATCHES GO4 RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE 27 Aug. 1860-2 Jul. 1931. 4 bundles. 12’ 2".

Before the date of the commencement of this series separate and confidential despatches are included in their chronological place in GO1. From August, 1860 all such despatches are included in this series, whether or not they are also marked as coming under another category; this however does not apply to Secret and Confidential Circulars, which will be found in GO5, or to purely formal acknowledgments (GO14).

The 1867 edition of the Colonial Regulations laid it down that when responsible Government is established the Governor is generally at liberty to communicate to his Advisers all Despatches not 'Confidential'. 240 This however did not mean that all the despatches in this series were withheld from the Premier and his colleagues; most of them were, confidentially, so communicated, but the Governor had the discretion of withholding them if he deemed that course wise. Though the practice of marking despatches in this way was primarily an office device to ensure that these communications did not stray from the proper channels, the tendency is that most of the matters discussed are of greater relative importance than those dealt with in other series of inward despatches. "Separate"

238 B. M. Richmond, Some Aspects of the History of Transportation and Immigration in V.D.L., 1824-1855. Unpub. thesis, p.91. 239 Goderich-Arthur, 15 Nov. 1831. GO3/1. 240 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1867. Sec. 188.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group usually indicated that the subject related to personal affairs, either of the Governor himself or of someone in the colony; "confidential" despatches usually related to public affairs, but were thus classified to avoid the embarrassment or confusion that might result if their contents were published; "secret" despatches at first (they began about 1872) are hardly distinguishable from "confidential", but later they tend to become solely concerned with defence and associated matters.

The most common subjects discussed in the series are defence, honours to be bestowed on colonial subjects, diplomatic and trade matters, conment on the Governor's periodical confidential reports, discipline and matters connected with the personal affairs of men connected with the Colony.

CIRCULAR DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY GO 5 OF STATE 18 Apr. 1860-23 Apr. 1914, 3 Jan. 1917-27 Dec. 1932. 21 bundles. 9'.

Circular despatches before the date of the commencement of this series are bound in the volumes of GO1.

The matters dealt with in these despatches relate either generally to all colonies or to two or more of them; some relate only to the Australian colonies. Circulars were used to communicate with the colonial Governors on common matters between them and the Crown, the British Courts, the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade and other central agencies; to inform them about matters which would or might be of interest to their governments; and to call for information about common matters. This is the most voluminous series of despatches after GO1, and it probably constitutes a fairly complete set of the issuances from the Colonial Office during these years; it is therefore of interest in studies in British colonial history generally, apart from its value exclusively to Tasmania. The Governor referred circulars to his advisers, and as a result many have attached to them memoranda from the Premier and other Ministers.

The following subjects are commonly dealt with: trade arrangements, shipping and navigation; consular arrangements, postal and other matters concerning communications; defence and the protection of British interests abroad; British treaty arrangements and colonial agreements with foreign powers; Civil service regulations and other matters, precedence and ceremonial; research into various fields (e.g., diseases and agriculture) of interest to some or all colonies. Many of these despatches transmit British official or semi- official publications relating to such questions as these.

After the establishment of the Commonwealth this State continued to receive the circulars distributed among the Crown colonies; from January, 1908, many of the circulars bear the additional mark "Dominions" and in 1917 a new series, not printed, was introduced to take the place of the Circulars. The Under-Secretary explained that "despatches from the Secretary of State in cases where the Governments of all the Self-governing Dominions are being communicated with in similar terms, will be numbered in a separate series, headed 'Dominions No …’ …”241 Those that were marked additionally "secret" or "confidential" are to be found in GO4. This part of the series was numbered in a continuous sequence for all dominions; Tasmania did not receive all of them, so that the numbering is intermittent.

241 Under-Secretary-Private-Secretary, 1 Jan. 1917. GO 16/2.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

They were referred to Ministers and sometimes contain internal memoranda and copies of the Governors reply.

The "Dominions" sub-series was superseded in 1931 by despatches numbered under the letter A, C or D, which contain the same type of material; secret and confidential despatches are included. Again the numbering is intermittent, for the same reason as above, and similar memoranda and copies of replies are included. The letters A, C and D have no relation to the subject matter of the despatch, being used apparently for office convenience.

"LIBRARY" DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE COLONIAL GO6 OFFICE 4 Jun. 1868-22 Dec. 1932. 4 bundles. 1' 1".

Earlier despatches in this series are bound in the volumes of GO1. Originally marked "Parliamentary" they became known as "Library" despatches in November, 1880. Their purpose was to cover the transmission of British Parliamentary Papers and other official publications intended for the information of colonial and State governments. In many cases the enclosures have been removed, probably for inclusion in the Library of Parliament.

"GENERAL" DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO7 SECRETARY OF STATE 31 Aug. 1871-20 Dec. 1906. 3 bundles. 8".

There is no particular function or subject common to these despatches, which cover as wide a field as those of GO1. They are often on subjects common to many colonies, though they are not circulars, and this characteristic probably explains their distinguishing mark. Some of the subjects dealt with are: trade and commerce, treaties and conventions; customs and tariffs, navigation; currency and consuls; postal and telegraphic matters; copyright, trademarks and patents; defence; international standardisation of legislation on such matters as: naturalisation, taxation, probate, sale of liquor and labour conditions, health; and appointments of Governors and judges.

Referred by the Governor to his Ministers, these despatches often contain memoranda by the latter to enable the Governor to reply.

DESPATCHES TRANSMITTING COPIES OF TELEGRAPHIC GO 8 DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE 16 Jul. 1874- 14 June 1923. 2 bundles. 5".

Direct telegraphic communication between Great Britain and Australia was possible from August, 1872; before that date, however, the Governor was invited to send important news to the Governor of Ceylon, who would send it on telegraphically by means of a cypher. 242 The despatches in this series are formal documents enclosing a copy of the telegraphic communication for purposes of record. Most of the messages are in code, though the subject is often given en clair in the covering despatch. In March, 1923 the Under- Secretary informed the Private Secretary that it had been decided to discontinue the

242 Buckingham and Clarence-Gore Browne, 1 May 1868, Secret and Conf. GO4/1.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group practice of sending by mail copies of code telegrams. In future, schedules would be forwarded giving the date and subject of each such despatch. 243

"HONOURS" DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO9 SECRETARY OF STATE 30 Nov. 1879-1 Apr. 1930. 1 bundle. 2".

The title of this well-defined series is self-explanatory. The despatches convey to the Governor notification of honours, ranging from Imperial Service Medals to K.C.M.G., on persons in Tasmania; occasionally they discuss the principles to be observed in making recommendations for honours, and those involved in making the choice. For information on the machinery of recommending honours, see pp.xxx of the Introduction.

Internal memoranda and sometimes a copy of the Governor’s reply are included.

"FEDERAL COUNCIL" DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO10 SECRETARY OF STATE 24 Oct. 1889-30 Dec. 1898. 1 bundle. 21'.

By an Act of Parliament244 of I885 the Federal Council was established achieving a very limited union of the Australian colonies (except New South Wales), New Zealand and Fiji. It was vested with some sovereign powers previously exercised by the British Government; these included the regulation of the relations of Australasia with the Pacific islands, the prevention of the influx of criminals, the control of fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits. Some matters could be referred to the Council by any two of the colonies: defence, quarantine, patents and copyright, uniformity of weights and measures, recognition of differing colonial legislation on marriage and divorce, naturalisation and other matters of common interest with which the colonial legislatures could deal. But the Council had no executive powers, no powers to raise or spend money, and depended on the colonial governments to carry out any measures it might pass. It was but a step on the way towards federation "and passed into oblivion unhonoured and unsung" in 1899. 245 These despatches contain replies and acknowledgements to those in GO28, of which they are the British counterpart. Subjects included are: assent to bills passed by the Council; representation of the Colony at its meetings; matters arising out of its deliberations, such as control of the pearl fisheries, of arms and liquor traffic in the Pacific, Australian representation on the Privy Council. The despatches are numbered annually under the mark "Federal Council".

"MISCELLANEOUS" DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO11 SECRETARY OF STATE 30 Jan. 1902-24 Mar. 1930. 1 bundle. 2".

In general, the subject coverage of this series is confined to minor honours, matters of protocol and ceremonial, representation of the State at international conferences, and the appointment of Governors and Administrators. Other subjects, such as uniform legislation,

243 Under-Secretary-Private-Secretary, 10 Mar. 1923. GO16/2 244 48 & 49 Vict., cap. 60. 245 L. F. Crisp, The Parliamentary Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. Adelaide, 1949. p.6.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group control of pests and the reorganisation of the Colonial Office are included. Internal correspondence is also occasionally present.

COLONIAL OFFICE DESPATCHES ACKNOWLEDGING GO12 DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNOR 29 Apr. 1860-25 Aug. 1926. 3 bundles. 7".

These documents take the shape of a printed form, over the name of either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, acknowledging receipt of despatches "of the numbers and dates noted in the margin." They were discontinued from 1 September, 1926, after which date the Dominions Office checked its incoming mails with the Governor’s schedule which, if found correct, was merely stamped as being so and returned to the State. These forms could be used as a useful check on the Governor's outgoing despatches.

COLONIAL OFFICE DESPATCHES ACKNOWLEDGING AND GO13 REPEATING TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNOR 8 Apr. 1881-5 Dec. 1894. 1 bundle. 1".

The chief value of these despatches, the body of which is printed, is that they repeat the telegraphic message to which they are an acknowledgment, either on the face of the despatch or in an enclosure. Most, though not all, of the messages are in one or other of the Colonial Office codes. Previous despatches in the series will be found in GO1.

COLONIAL OFFICE SCHEDULES OF DESPATCHES SENT TO GO14 THE GOVERNOR 7 Aug. 1896-30 Dec. 1932. 7 vols. 1'.

A schedule was enclosed in every despatch bag, and indicated the contents of the mail. It consisted of a printed form providing for the number (or other mark) of the despatch, the date and the subject; in the case of secret and confidential despatches the latter entry is not made, but for all others this series is a useful finding aid for the location of despatches on particular subjects. They have therefore been bound.

DOMINIONS OFFICE SCHEDULES OF TELEGRAMS SENT TO GO15 THE GOVERNOR 8 Feb. 1926-30 Dec. 1932. 1 bundle. 1".

The Under-Secretary explained in March, 1923 that it had been decided to discontinue the practice of forwarding by mail copies of code telegrams sent from the Colonial Office; schedules would henceforth be sent, showing the date and subject of each telegram sent, separate schedules would be compiled for ordinary, secret and confidential telegrams. 246 The subject of the communication is given en clair, even in the case of the last two categories.

UNCLASSIFIED COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COLONIAL GO16 OFFICE 14 Apr. 1862-5 Oct. 1932. 2 bundles. 4".

246 Under-Secretary-Private-Secretary, 10 Mar. 1893. GO16/1.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

These are the communications from the Colonial Office to the Governor which were not, for one reason or another, classified under any of the normal foregoing categories. Some are otherwise regular despatches from the Secretary of State; for example, many of the despatches forwarding the Governor's Commissions and Instructions are to be found here; and other matters personal to the Governor or the Private Secretary are dealt with. There are small sub-series relating to emigration and financial accounts, and a few printed despatches which are really circulars though they are not so marked. Other subjects dealt with are: honours and ceremonial, introductions for visitors, clerical matters in connection with despatches, publications forwarded.

DESPATCHES FROM THE TREASURY TO THE OFFICER-IN- GO17 COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY’S FORCES IN THE COL0NY 30 Nov. 1821, 3 Jan. 1827-21 Dec. 1833. 1 vol. 2".

During the period that these despatches cover, the Lieutenant-Governor was in command of British troops in the Colony. Many of them are circulars from the Commissariat Branch of the British Treasury conveying instructions as to the mode of transacting financial business and on such subjects as currency, rations, rates of exchange, Ordnance stores, military allowances, forage allowances, pay of Commissariat officers. Duplicates of many of these despatches, from September, 1833, are bound in CSO19/6. Some of the corresponding outward despatches will be found in GO33 and GO52/3.

COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM BRITISH GO18 DEPARTMENTS OTHER THAN THE COLONIAL OFFICE 16 Mar. 1863-12 Jan. 1924. 1 bundle. 2".

This is an entirely miscellaneous collection of communications received by the Governor direct from various British departments. The largest single subject, the winding up of the Convict Department and the handing over of its functions to the Colony, is dealt with in a series of despatches from the Home Office. Other departments represented are: War Office, Ordnance Survey Office, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, Admiralty, Treasury, Board of Trade, Stationery Office; the communications are often of but slight interest in themselves, such as those which transmit copies of publications. For copies of the Governor’s despatches to the Home Office, 1869-79, see GO32.

DESAPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNORS OF GO19 OTHER COLONIES AND STATES 17 Nov. 1862-18 June 1917. 4 bundles. 1”.

It was regular practice for the various Governors to communicate direct with each other on matters of common interest to their respective colonies. Some of the matters dealt with in these despatches did not reach the Secretary of State level, and in others the preliminary stages were dealt with here. Correspondence with the Governors of other Australian States is commonest, but many other colonies are represented: Canada, Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, Dominica, Fiji, Madras, Mauritius, New Caledonia, New Guinea, New Zealand, Orange River Colony, Pretoria, Province of Otago, St Helena, Singapore, Trinidad, Western Pacific High Commission. Some of the subjects dealt with are matters of interest

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group to more than one colony, such as defence; the Protectorate of New Guinea, its annexation and the colonies' financial obligations with respect to it; the affairs of the Federal Council; trade relations, treaties and colonial exhibitions; State representation on the Privy Council and at colonial conferences; the affairs of the islands under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, such as the control of land purchase, trading, sale of arms and liquor, control of fisheries. There is correspondence on matters of exclusive interest to Tasmania, such as casualties and other personnel matters in relation to the Boer war, extradition orders, and requests for information. Many despatches relate to the office of Governor, such as those which notify him of the assumption of duties by other Governors, or acknowledge his communications to a like effect: and those which concern the relations of the Governor, the Governor-General and the Secretary of State. Copies of internal correspondence and of replies are sometimes present. In earlier years similar communications are to be found in the records of the Colonial Secretary’s Office (see Section One of the Guide) and in GO39. Some of the outward correspondence will be found in copy in GO52, 53, 56/3, and in GO36. Some of the inward correspondence is registered in GO51 and some of the outward in GO57. For other correspondence from other colonies and States, see GO42.

DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL GO20 OF THE COMMONWEALTH 24 Dec. 1900-29 Dec. 1919. 3 bundles. 11".

Most of these despatches relate to formal matters, such as announcements of the assumption of office, Royal deaths and accessions, consular appointments. However subjects of greater research interest do appear: recruiting for the Boer War, channels of communication, principles to be observed in recommending for honours, elections to the Federal Parliament and the amendment of the Constitution, the issue of passports and the collection of probate duties, immigration. Many despatches are either in the form of telegrams or are recorders; they are in code. Copies of internal memoranda and Governor's replies are sometimes included. Other despatches from the Governor-General are included in GO48/4 (Naval matters) and GO49 (Consular matters). To 1907 the despatches are registered in GO51, and for copies of some replies, see GO52/12-13.

REGISTERS OF DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO21 SECRETARY OF STATE 2 Aug. 1826-14 Aug. 1828, 24 Oct. 1846-21 Aug, 1939. 1 folder and 5 vols. 1' 1 “.

These registers vary greatly in their form and in the extent of the information presented, according to the habits of the Private Secretary who kept them. However, particulars common to all of them are: despatch number, date and summary of contents; the date of receipt also usually appears. The first register, which combines particulars of inward and outward despatches (see GO37/1) also notices communications received from the Under- Secretary. From October, 1846 details appear as to the action taken on the despatch: to whom and when referred, date returned and details of the Governor's reply. All categories of despatches are usually entered, including "secret" and "confidential" (except for the period during which a separate register was kept for them; see GO22), but there is usually no indication of the nature of the contents of these. The gap from 1828 to 1846 may be supplied by the précis books which have been compiled by a former archivist for the

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group despatches, 1825-55. Combined with the schedules of GO14, these registers provide an invaluable chronological finding aid for the series of inward despatches.

REGISTER OF SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL DESPATCHES GO22 RECEIVED FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE 29 Dec 1881-3 Dec. 1904. 1 vol. 1½".

For the years before and after the period covered by this volume despatches in this category axe registered, though their contents are not usually described, in GO21. The tabulation provides for the following particulars: ship and date of arrival, despatch number and date, subject, to whom and when referred, when returned and details of reply. The completeness of the entries, especially those under "subject", varies according to the habits of the Private Secretary, but nevertheless this register is a valuable finding aid, being the only independent means of reference to that part of GO4 it covers.

INDEXES TO DESPATCHES RECEIVED FROM THE GO23 SECRETARY OF STATE 1825-77, 1882, 1884-5. 9 vols. 10".

Several attempts were made to maintain indexes of the inward despatches, and this series is therefore a collection of several distinct indexes. The volumes are each complete in themselves, not divisions of the alphabet. The first two were used as a draft for the third (1825-46). The technique used is not first-class, though it improves with the years. The details always given are: subject, volume, page, date and number. The volume numbers quoted, though not the same by which the volumes are now known, still appear, but it is easier to rely on the date given. Cross-references are few, and though it is probably true to say that every despatch is entered under one or another heading, the problem is to guess the heading used. Secret and confidential despatches are not usually noticed. Details of the Governor's reply are given in the indexes for 1882 and 1884-5.

PRIVATE SECRETARY’S LISTS OF DESPATCHES RECEIVED GO24 FROM THE SECRETARY 2 Jan. 1866-27 Jun. 1872. 1 bundle. ½”.

These are the contents lists compiled by the Private Secretary to be placed in the front of the binders formerly used (from 1860) to hold all categories of inward despatches. They give date of despatch, number, and a fairly full summary of its contents. Numbered, un- numbered and circular despatches are separately listed.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

B. - Despatches sent

LETTERBOOKS OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE SECRETARY GO25 OF STATE 16 Jan. 1821-21 Jan. 1911. 26 vols. 6' 7".

This is a complete set of the Governor’s outward despatches to the Secretary of State, but its chief disadvantage is that enclosures, sometimes of more importance than the covering despatch, are not as a rule included; this can however usually be overcome in one of a number of ways: reference to GO33 or GO41, or to the records listed in Appendix E. On the other hand, perhaps the chief merit, apart from completeness, of this series is that the volumes contain either a register or an index or both, except for the first (to April, 1824) and the last four (from January, 1878); in the case of the latter separate indexes are available (see GO38). There are registers for the volumes from June, 1824 to June, 1848, and indexes for those from July, 1836 to June, 1843 and again from January, 1847 to December, 1877. The registers give the date of the despatch, sometimes its number, and generally a fairly full summary of its contents. They may be supplemented, for the period 1824-56, by the précis books mentioned under GO21. The indexes are as a rule fairly carefully compiled, with occasional cross references, but they should not be relied on for finding anything beyond the main subject of a despatch.

The first two volumes contain copies of despatches sent to other officials, but there-after this series is restricted to the Secretary of State. Press copy books were not used, and these volumes contain copies transcribed by hand. After 1911 typewritten carbon copies were kept (c.f. GO34). Regularly up to 1844, and intermittently thereafter, details of the ships carrying the originals and the duplicates are given. The enclosures are described and, from the late 1870s, if the enclosure was in the form of a printed document, a copy was pasted in the volume. From 1845 the despatches begin to be classified according to the headings laid down in the Colonial Regulations, but they continue to be numbered in a single series. These classifications cease to be used from January, 1871. From 1901 it is indicated whether or not a copy of the despatch was sent to the Governor-General. In the case of telegraphic despatches in code, a translation is given. Before a separate letterbook was kept (from 1869) for them (see GO27) confidential despatches were copied into these volumes. For additional registers for the periods 1827-8, 1857-1920 see GO40, and for additional indexes for 1847-8, and 1878-84, see GO38.

LETTERBOOKS OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE UNDER- GO26 SECRETARY OF STATE 18 Dec. 1818-23 Dec. 1836. 4 vols. 7".

Though the subjects dealt with in these communications are as a rule of less moment than those that were made the subject of despatches to the Secretary of State, they are by no means all trivial or entirely formal; for discussion of the practice of a Governor's correspondence vrith the Under-Secretary, see the introductory note to this Part. The despatches that were copied into these volumes were all addressed to the Under-Secretary in an official capacity, while many of those that are bound in GO33 are semi-personal; they do not include many that are marked “Private” and which are printed in Historical Records of Australia (see Appendix E). From 1825 the despatches are entered in registers contained in the volumes, giving date, addressee (i.e., the Under Secretary), summary of

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group contents and page number. In the first three volumes (to 1832) the despatches to the Under-Secretary are interspersed with communications addressed to the Secretaty of State and other British officials (see GO25 and 31). For copies of other letters to the Under- Secretary, see GO52/3.

LETTERBOOKS OF CONFIDENTIAL DESPATCHES SENT TO GO27 THE SECRETARY OF STATE 21 Apr. 1869-29 Dec. 1913. 2 vols. 4½".

Most of the despatches copied into these volumes take the form of the confidential reports whose origin is described on pp. 2-3 of the introductory note to this Part. The range of subjects dealt with is very wide, and the freedom of expression given the Governor by this type of communication make this a particularly valuable series; no-one but the Governor and the Private Secretary had access to these letterbooks, 247 and their contents were not normally subject to publication in England. Copies were not sent to the Governor-General. In the field of public affairs, subjects regularly referred to are: agriculture, mining, whaling, railways, public institutions, political questions, public disasters such as fires and floods, Federation, the Boer War, defence, parliamentary affairs. Other subjects include: recommendations for honours and matters personal to the Governor. In general, these despatches are thoughtful and dispassionate commentaries on Tasrnanian and Australian affairs. Enclosures, particularly when they are printed, are often included. The first volume (to 1877) contains a register of contents, including summaries of subjects.

LETTERBOOK OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE SECRETARY GO28 OF STATE ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL COUNCIL 7 Jan. 1890-15 Jan. 1899. 1 vol. 1½".

For information relating to the origins and functions of the Federal Council, see under GO10; the despatches copied into this letterbook are the colonial counterpart to that series. The Act establishing the Council provided that the Governor of the host Colony should summon and prorogue the Council; it met at Hobart in January of 1891, 1892, 1895 and 1896, and many of these communications relate to the arrangements for the meetings. They are numbered from 1 under the mark "Federal Council", and sometimes enclosures are copied. Copies of despatches to other Governors on these matters are included.

LETTERBOOK OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE GO29 COMMISSIONERS FOR THE NAVY 8 Jan. 1819-20 Nov. 1821. Part of 1 vol.

The Commissioners for the Navy at the time of these despatches were responsible for the charter of convict transports and for all the arrangements necessary for the management of prisoners while they were being shipped to the Colony. These communications therefore relate to the circumstances of the voyage, the conduct of the officers, the state of health, the arrival and disembarkation of the prisoners, stores. They are interspersed with copies of despatches to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary (see GO25/1). There is no register or index. For copies of similar despatches in the period 1826-33, see GO52/4-5,

247 Weld-Carnarvon, 1 Oct. 1877, No.17, Conf. GO27/1.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group and for despatches from the Department of the Comptroller for Victualling and Transport Services of a later period, see GO39/4.

LETTERBOOK OF DESPATCHES SENT MAINLY TO THE GO30 TREASURY Jan. 1826-18 May 1839. 1 vol. 2".

From August, 1829 all these communications are addressed to the Treasury; but before that date the Adjutant-General and other military officials, and the War Office are among the addressees. Subjects dealt with include Commissariat matters, the Ordnance Department, general financial matters, stores, military affairs, Customs, Colonial Treasury affairs. Notes on the ships and dates of despatch of original and duplicate appear, and there is an index covering the period to August, 1829. For corresponding inward despatches from the Treasury, see GO17 and for others, including some from the War Office, see GO39/1. GO52/3 contains some copies of despatches addressed to the Treasury from 1826.

LETTERBOOK AND REGISTER OF DESPATCHES SENT TO GO31 THE COLONIAL AGENT 20 May 1826-18 May1834. Parts of 2 vols.

On the recommendation of Commissioner Bigge, Edward Barnard was in 1822 appointed by the Secretary of State as Agent in England for New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land; 248 until 1832 his whole salary was paid by New South Wales, when Van Diemen's Land undertook to pay one-third. The despatches in this series reflect his duties: the collection and payment of salaries in England on behalf of colonial officers; the handling of English estates of persons dying in the Colony; the answering of English enquiries about colonists; the despatch of stores. The copies were kept in two volumes; in the first (to 1831) they are interspersed with despatches to the Under-Secretary (see GO26/3) and have a separate register; in the second the register only remains, the few despatches having been removed by the Private Secretary and the volume used for another purpose (see GO32). The registers give a summary of the contents of each despatch. For correspondence received from the Colonial Agent see GO39/2.

LETTERBOOK OF DESPATCHES ON CONVICT MATTERS GO32 SENT TO THE HOME OFFICE 25 Nov. 1869-9 Sep. 1879. 1 vol. 2½”

The despatches copied into this letterbook date from the period when the Convict Establishment was being taken over by the Colony from the Imperial authorities; many relate to the details of this transfer. The series itself results from an instruction given by the Secretary of State in August, 1869 to the effect that it had been decided to transfer the management of Imperial convicts in Tasmania to the Home Office, and that the Governor would henceforth receive from the Home Secretary instructions "on all matters relating to Convict Prisons and to Prisoners who have been convicted in the United Kingdom and you will correspond with him direct on these subjects." 249 The letterbook was used to keep copies of outward despatches to the Home Office distinct from those sent to the Secretary of State. They relate to matters connected with individual convicts, financial arrangements

248 Bathurst-Brisbane, 1 Sep. 1822 and encl. H.R.A. I, x, 728. 249 Granville-Du Cane, 23 Aug. 1869, No.51. GO1/112.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group for the Convict Establishment, stores. The corresponding inward despatches from the Home Office are to be found in G018. There is an alphabetical register giving details of despatch number, date, page and number of enclosures. The volume also contains a register of despatches sent to the Colonial Agent (see GO31/2).

DUPLICATE DESPATCHES RECEIVED BY THE COLONIAL GO33 OFFICE 12 Feb 1825-27 Dec. 1855. 83 vols. 32' 5".

These despatches do not strictly belong to the Governor's Office; they are the records of the Colonial Office, deposited in the Public Record Office, and presented to the State. But they have been included in this Record Group because it would be unrealistic not to do so. In a despatch to the Governor in April, 1909 the Secretary of State asked him to bring to the attention of his Ministers the fact that the British Government wished to dispose of duplicate Colonial Office correspondence with the colonial Government; the Secretary of State suggested that Tasmania might be glad to have these records, bound in 83 volumes and covering the period 1825-55. 250 The Premier indicated that the Government appreciated the action of the Colonial Office, and that the Agent-General had been instructed to ship the volumes to Hobart; this was done in November, 1909. 251 Other States took advantage of a similar offer. The chief value of these duplicates as compared with the letterbooks of GO25 is that enclosures are present, it having been strictly laid down that both original and duplicate should be complete, in case the latter reach its destination first. Some of these despatches are in fact the originals, the series being made up of whichever copies arrived second. Enclosures make up the bulk of the series, as they are far more numerous and substantial than those sent in the Secretary of State’s despatches to the Governor. Despatches addressed to the Under-Secretary are included during the period that this channel was in use (see the introductory note to this Part). For information on the originals and other copies of these despatches, see Appendix E. The précis books mentioned under GO21 are a useful finding aid.

COPIES OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF GO34 STATE 2 Mar. 1897-5 Dec. 1932,. 1 bundle. 3".

In most cases, after letterbooks were dispensed with (see under GO25), inward despatches to which the Governor replied have a copy of the outward despatch filed with them (GO1, 4, 5, 9, 16); in cases where the Governor initiated the correspondence, the copy of the despatch is often to be found in this series, which included both numbered and secret and confidential despatches in the form of type-written carbon copies. Enclosures are usually present. Many despatches are telegraphic, and are therefore in code.

COPIES OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE GOVERNOR- GO35 GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH 21 Jul. 1904, 17 Aug. 1910-28 Dec. 1916. 1 bundle. 1”.

As in the case of GO34, many of the Governors replies to despatches from the Governor- General are to be found filed with the inward despatch (GO20); this is therefore not a

250 Crewe-Strickland, 16 Apr. 1909, No.38. GO1/138. 251 Premier’s minute, 21 May 1909; Agent-General-Premier, 19 Nov. 1909. PD1/212/52/4.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group complete file of the Governor’s outward correspondence with the Governor-General, but rather a collection of stray copies. Confidential and secret despatches are included, as well as telegraphic. The series does not include copies of those despatches to the Secretary of State that were sent to the Governor-General.

COPIES OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE GOVERNORS OF GO36 OTHER COLONIES AND STATES 16 Sep. 1911-17 Jan. 1916. 1 folder. ½”

As in the case of GO34 and GO35, the replies to despatches received from other Governors are often to be found filed together with the inward despatch (GO19); for this reason, and because copies of the Governor’s outward correspondence of this nature and period do not appear to have been kept systematically, this series should not be regarded as complete.

REGISTERS OF DESPATCHES SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF GO37 STATE 2 Jan. 1827-20 Sep. 1828, 8 Apr. 1857-15 Apr. 1920. 5 vols and part of 1 vol. 8".

The first of these registers (1827-8) is part of GO21/1, the verso pages being devoted to inward despatches, the recto to outward; it also lists separately despatches sent to the Under-Secretary. The remaining volumes are in the form of copies of the schedules of despatches sent: that is, they list the contents of the despatch bag sent in any one mail. However, the purpose of the form of each is similar. It should be noted that the first item duplicates four years of the registers included in the volumes of GO25 (1824-48), and that these latter registers to some extent fill the gap between 1828 and 1857 in this series.

The tabulation common to all the registers in this series provides for: date of despatch, number, summary of contents, date and ship of mail. From 1857 information is also given of items in the despatch bag other than despatches (private letters, newspapers, etc.), details of enclosures and, from 1869, a reference to the Secretary of State's reply, if any. There is usually no summary of the contents of secret and confidential despatches, and the completeness of the information given varies with the Private Secretary. The series constitutes a very useful finding aid, used either on its own or in conjunction with the registers and/or indexes of GO25, or the précis books mentioned under GO21.

INDEXES TO DESPATCHES SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF GO38 STATE 14 Oct. 1848, Jan. 1878-Dec, 1884. 2 vols. 3".

These volumes are supplemented by the indexes contained in some of the letterbooks of GO25; taking them into account, the period for which indexes to outward despatches exist extends from July, 1836 to June, 1843, and the gap from 1848 to 1877 is closed.

In the first of the indexes in this series the entries are arranged alphabetically by year, the tabulation being: number of despatch, key-word of entry, sub-entry summarising the subject, date of despatch and reference to the page in the appropriate volume of GO25 ("vol. 1" now being GO25/15). This index deteriorates in its comprehensiveness as it proceeds.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

The second index arranges the entries by initial only, in chronological sequence. It relates to part of GO25/23. Cross references are included, and the index in general is more useful than the first; both suffer from the limitation of the entries for any one despatch.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

PART 2 - CORRESPONDENCE RECORDS, 1820-1932

Before responsible government distributed the responsibility for the Governor's executive functions among his Ministers, 252 the normal channel for correspondence intended for the Chief Executive was through the Colonial Secretary (see the General Introduction to Section 1 of the Guide); the great bulk of a Governor's correspondence was with the Colonial Office, and most of his functions are therefore documented in the despatches of Part 1. But, notwithstanding, a considerable amount of correspondence, though entirely secondary to the Governor’s principal function as Crown representative in the Colony, was carried on through his Office with persons other than those with whom the despatches of Part 1 are concerned.

It is this material that is described in this Part of the Record Group; broadly it is of three types, each represented in various series in both subdivisions that follow: correspondence with the Governor specifically as colonial representative of the Crown; correspondence which was carried on as part of the normal administrative routine; and correspondence, sometimes of a semi-personal nature which, for one reason or another, was conducted personally by the Governor himself or through his Private Secretary, though it did not fall within these two broad categories.

The earliest correspondence dates from a period before the appointment of a Colonial Secretary, when the relative simplicity of the administrative machine made direct access to the Lieutenant-Governor by officials and settlers alike a practical necessity; but even when the administration was re-organised, after the separation from New South Wales, some officials continued to claim and exercise this right, and it became fairly standard practice. The judges, the Crown law officers, the high ecclesiastics and some of the wealthier settlers refused to make their communications through a third party, and the Governor probably found that too rigid an insistence on the regular channels tended to clog rather than to facilitate the administrative processes. In 1834 Arthur asked the Attorney-General to address himself to the Colonial Secretary, except on confidential matters, as it was necessary that the Colonial Secretary should be made acquainted with all the ordinary arrangements of the Government as his Office is the proper Office for the records of the Colony, and as considerable inconvenience and confusion has sometimes originated from the present mode of conducting the law correspondence of the Government .... 253 But the practice continued.

The Governors of other colonies naturally wrote to their equal, often on a semi-personal level (as distinct from their despatches in Part 1), and Imperial officers (such as naval and military commanders, the Comptroller-General) and the representatives of foreign states made their communications only to the representative of the Crown, as a matter of protocol. Other reports, such as those from the Attorney-General on colonial legislation and those from the judges on capital trials, were made direct to the Governor in accordance with Royal Instructions. And the right of private individuals to petition the Crown through its local representative was protected by the Colonial Regulations. A large part of the

252 “The Governor, Cabinet, and the Administration”, by W. A. Townsley. Chap. 4 in F. C. Green (ed.), A Century of Responsible Government 1856-1956. Hobart, 1956. 253 Lieutenant-Governor-Attorney-General, 10 May 1834. GO55/1.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group correspondence, both inward and outward, is concerned with the day-to-day administration of the Colony and State, and takes the form of internal memoranda between the Governor and the heads of departments. Some of that received by the Governor found its way into despatches, having often been written specifically to enable him to keep the Secretary of State informed; the outward correspondence conveys instructions for action, calls for information, or comments on public affairs. This type of material bears a particularly close relationship to the records of the Colonial Secretary's Office (1824-55), the Chief Secretary’s Department (1856- ) and the Premier's Department (1883- ).

After responsible government was achieved the Governor's social and ceremonial functions increased in rough proportion to the decline in his constitutional powers; the correspondence arising out of this aspect of the Governor's position forms a large proportion of the third type of correspondence. Invitations, requests for patronage, loyal addresses and other such material have not always been kept, and are better represented in some Governor's periods than in others. In other cases, either before or after 1856, correspondence is semi-personal, such as that with settlers with whom the Governor was on terms of personal acquaintance, distinguished visitors, British authorities, or others whose connection or business was with the Governor himself rather than with the Government.

The Governor's Office was ill-equipped to deal satisfactorily with these types of correspondence, additional to the despatches; the latter were a simple filing proposition for the Private Secretary, but since this officer's term was seldom longer than his chief's the lack of continuity in clerical staff meant that consistent record keeping practices were not developed; registers are incomplete and indexes non-existent for the inward correspondence, and filing methods were rough and ready. The post-1860 series of inward correspondence in this Part have all been created from largely unclassified accumulations.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

A. - Correspondence received

MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESSED GO39 PRINCIPALLY TO THE GOVERNOR 23 Nov. 1821-23 Dec. 1848, 27 Nov. 1861-13 Oct. 1926. 7 vols. and 2 bundles. 1’ 5".

The correspondence in this series was not kept in a consistent form by the Private Secretary, nor was it registered. In the first part of the series the papers tend to be of greater value relatively than in the second. In many cases they are papers referred to the Governor by Departments, especially the Colonial Secretary's Office and, for one or another reason, not returned. Others are stray copies and originals of despatches from London, including several despatches from the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary to Lieutenant-Governor Sorell, and some from other British Departments to Arthur. There is much correspondence from those officers who claimed the right of direct communication with the Governor, and a few despatches from other Colonial Governors. Also included are petitions and memorials sent direct to the Governor, a few letters from settlers with whom the Governor was on terms of personal acquaintance. Some of the correspondence is addressed to the Private Secretary. The seventh volume (1826-47) overlaps the first six, and contains many formal documents such as Governors' Instructions and Oaths of Office; it is contemporaneously entitled "Papers without Date" and its contents are completely miscellaneous. The two bundles of unbound correspondence (1861-1926) contain petitions and memorials seeking the Governor's interference on behalf of individuals and groups, invitations to attend functions or soliciting his patronage, communications from other parts of the world addressed to him as the representative of the Colony, letters on public questions from private persons claiming the right of direct access, loyal addresses, enquiries about convicts and others. In this period there are far more letters arising out of the ceremonial and social aspects of the Governor's position. From 1882 to 1907 the inward correspondence is registered in GO51, and for copies of some of the corresponding outward letters see GO52 and GO53; some of the latter are registered in GO57 (1878- 1902). An index to the first part of this series (1821-48) has been prepared.

MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESSED TO THE GO40 PRIVATE SECRETARY 22 Jan. 1862-13 Dec.1924. 2 bundles. 6".

The normal channel for communications intended for the Governor personally or as distinct from the administration was through the Private Secretary; the subject matter of the letters in this series therefore does not differ greatly from that of the second part of GO39, except insofar as some letters are personal or semi-personal to or are intended for the Private Secretary himself. Petitions seeking the Governor's interference, invitations soliciting his patronage, acceptances for Government House functions and letters relating to the ceremonial and social aspects of his duties make up the bulk of the series. The correspondence is registered from 1882 to 1907 in GO51; some of the corresponding outward letters may be found in GO52, and from 1878 to 1902 many such letters are registered in GO57.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM COLONIAL AND GO41 STATE DEPARTMENT 23 May 1861-11 Dec. 1919. 7 bundles. 1' 10".

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

In the earlier years of this series, the communications are from various Departments; later they are chiefly from the Premier. For the most part the memoranda furnish the Governor with the information he needed to write his despatches; they therefore return despatches referred to Ministers, with comments; furnish information called for; or provide the Governor with the material with which to address the Secretary of State on matters initiated by the Government. Matters of the highest importance are dealt with and, since many of these communications became enclosures in the Governor's despatches, the series forms an indispensable companion to the letterbooks of GO25, into which enclosures were often not copied. In most cases the memoranda from the Premier bear file numbers, so that the matters dealt with may easily be followed up in the correspondence records of the Premier's Department. Besides subjects bearing relation to the Governor's inward or outward despatches, some of these communications relate purely to internal questions, or to matters of intercolonial interest not referred to London. For the period 1882-1907 the registers of GO51 apply to this series, and some of the corresponding outward letters are registered in GO57 (1878-1902).

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM OTHER COLONIES GO42 AND STATES 19 May 1875-11 Dec. 1901. 1 bundle. 1".

The distinction between this series and GO19 is that in this case the correspondence is not from Governors, but from Heads of Departments and others in New Zealand, New South Wales, Singapore, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth Government. The subjects dealt with include legislation, matters relating to the Federal Council and the Commonvwealth Bill, New Guinea. The registers of GO51 apply to some of this correspondence from 1882, and some of the corresponding outward letters are registered (from 1878) in GO57.

REPORT OF ALEXANDER MACONOCHIE ON CONVICT GO43 DISCIPIINE AND ASSOCIATED PAPERS May-June 1837. 1 vol. 1½”.

Maconochie came to the Colony in 1837 as Private Secretary to Lieutenant-Governor Franklin. He had been commissioned by the English Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline to report on the colonial aspects of transportation; the report resulted in his dismissal by Franklin because, without his knowledge and authority, it reached the Secretary of State and the British press as a forthright condemnation of the Assignment System of convict discipline. 254 This volume contains, in addition to the report, the replies to the Principal Superintendent of Convicts, the Chief Police Magistrate and the Director- General of Roads to a sixty-nine point questionnaire on the conditions of convicts and the working of the Assignment System; various documents intended to illustrate the report, such as specimens of tickets-of-leave, pass forms, conduct records, scales of rations, regulations and legislation. There is also some correspondence from the officials concerned and the Colonial Secretary commenting on each other's remarks and making additional observations. The University of Tasmania holds a MS volume containing a

254 For details, see “The Maconochie Report on Convict Discipline”, by R. C. Sharman and P. R. Eldershaw, Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan. 1952.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group copy of Maconochie's reports and additional commentary by George Washington Walker and James Backhouse.

JUDGES' REPORTS OF SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASES, GO44 AND ASSOCIATED CORRESPONDENCE 20 Jan. 1840-27 Dec. 1841. 1 vol. 2".

The Colonial Regulations laid it down that judges presiding at criminal trials should take notes of the evidence, and that no capital sentence should be executed until the Governor should have based his concurrence on a reading of these notes. 255 The cases noted in this volume are chiefly capital, and the reports written either by the Chief Justice or the Puisne Judge; included are petitions for mercy, depositions and judges' notes. For similar reports, referred to the Comptroller-General of Convicts and covering the period 1849-51, 1854, 1858 and 1863-6, see Convict Department Record Group.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED RELATING TO THE GO45 SUSPENSION OF THE COLONIAL SECRETARY AND THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL 1841-3. 1 vol 2".

Most of the correspondence bound in this volume relates to the circumstances attending and following the suspension by Lieutenant-Governor Franklin of John Montagu, Colonial Secretary; however there is also a copy of a long letter (February, 1841) to the Secretary of State from H. G. Jones relating to his suspension.

The papers were apparently brought together and preserved by the Private Secretary, Henslowe, partly in vindication of his own part in the Montagu case. There are originals and copies of letters, many of a semi-personal nature, between Henslowe and Franklin and Henslowe and Montagu, Montagu and Franklin, the Chief Police Magistrate and others. Many of the documents are drafts, with emendations by the Private Secretary and the Lieutenant-Governor, of key papers in the controversy, such as summaries of correspondence and conversations, and memoranda for the presentation to the Secretary of State of the offcial side of the case.

For the most complete account of the Montagu case yet published, see Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Sir John Franklin in Tasmania, 1837-1843, Melbourne, 1949.

REPORTS OF THE COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CONVICTS GO46 6 May 1847-10 Jan. 1849, 6 Aug. 1851-14 Aug. 1857. 3 vols. 3"

When the Convict Department was, in 1843, reorganised under a Comptroller-General that officer was granted the right of direct access to the Lieutenant-Governor and by 1847 he was, for convict purposes, equivalent to the Colonial Secretary. 256 He therefore reported direct to the Lieutenant-Governor, and these volumes contain originals, drafts and copies of his reports, sometimes annual and sometimes semi-annual, setting forth his general and particular comments on the Administration of the Probabtion System of Convict

255 Rules and Regulations for the Information and Guidance of the Principal Officers and Others in His Majesty’s Colonial Possessions. London, 1837, Chap. 13, Sec. 1. 256 Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania Section 1, p. viii.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Discipline. For copies of the reports from 1843, see GO33, and from 1858 to 1862, see the Convict Department Record Group.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON MILITARY MATTERS GO47 14 Dec. 1861-30 Sep. 1870. 1 bundle. 1".

The letters in this small series are from the Commandant in Hobart and the Commanding Officer for the Australian Colonies in Melbourne; in either case they are addressed to the Governor as "Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief", in which capacity he had the direction of Imperial forces in the Colony, except in time of war. 257 The matters dealt with include the movement of troops, the disposition of sentries, the use of troops on ceremonial occasions, the handing over of Imperial property occupied by the troops to the Colony. Imperial forces were withdrawn from the Australian Colonies in 1870.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON NAVAL MATTERS GO48 8 Feb. 1863-25 Aug. 1925. 3 bundles. 8".

Most of these communications are from the Officer-in-Command of the Australian Station, which included the Indian Ocean from Sumatra, took in New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand, and extended into the Pacific from the Marshall Islands and the Marquesas to a point beyond Easter Island, and as far south as the Antarctic Circle. The Officer-in- Command was the channel for correspondence from the Admiralty, and these letters concern naval cadetships (the nomination of which was in the Governor's patronage), armament, naval defences, deserters, training cruises and ceremonial visits, hydrographic surveys, the annexation of New Guinea and the affairs of the Pacific Islands. Control of the Australian Station, whose boundaries had been slightly modified, passed to the Commonwealth Government in October, 1913. 258 The papers that follow this date are few, and for the most part from other sources; they include some despatches from the Governor-General relating to naval matters. For the period 1882-1907 this correspondence is registered in GO51, and some of the corresponding outward letters will be found in GO56/3; some of these latter are registered in GO57 (1878-1902).

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED RELATING TO FOREIGN GO49 CONSULS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 12 Nov. 1866-25 Nov. 1933. 1 bundle. 2½''.

Most of these letters are from various foreign consular agents in other States informing the Governor of their appointment, or of changes in their countries' consular representation; copies of the Governor's acknowledgements are sometimes included. From 1904, whenever the British Government was asked to recognise a consular agent in Australia, the Secretary of State wrote to both the Governor-General and the State Governor concerned to find out if any objection existed. The Commonwealth always consulted the State before replying; in cases of local application for provisional recognition, the Commonwealth similarly consulted the State, but the State did not always consult the Commonwealth. Because of the diplomatic complications likely to arise if recognition were granted by one Government and refused by the other, the Secretary of State in 1913 asked that full

257 Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty’s Colonial Service. London, 1867, Chap. 2, Sec. 2. 258 Admiral G. King Hall-Macartney, 11 Oct. 1913. GO48/4.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group consultation should take place. 259 Some of these letters are despatches from the Governor- General asking whether the local Government has any objection to the issue of exequaturs; some of the correspondence is internal. From 1882 to 1907 these letters are registered in GO51; some outward letters will be found in GO56/3, and registered (1878-1902) in GO57.

BILLS RECEIVED FOR ASSENT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S GO50 REPORT ON LEGISLATION 15 Oct. 1870-24 Dec. 1901. 1 bundle. 2½".

The Governor's Commission and Instructions required him to give the Royal Assent to legislation, withhold Assent, or to reserve legislation for the signification of the Crown's pleasure; the categories of legislation to which he could not assent were set out (see Introduction, p. xx). After the introduction of responsible government it became the duty of the Attorney-General, not the Chief Justice as formerly (see p. xii), to give his certificate that the legislation was not repugnant to British law; these papers include such certificates, indicating whether the Governor should give or withhold such assent, or reserve the bills. There are also associated papers, such as petitions of protest against the passage of legislation. From 1888 there are Attorney-General's reports on the bills passed during any one session, explaining the purpose and history of the bills, and intended for transmission to the Secretary of State; despatches related to this series may therefore be found in GO25.

REGISTERS OF INWARD CORRESPONDENCE GO51 10 Jan. 1882-9 Oct. 1907. 2 vols. 3½".

In these volumes was registered the correspondence received by the Governor's Office other than the despatches from England; they therefore relate to the following series: Despatches received from other colonies and States (GO19); Despatches received from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth (GO20); Miscellaneous correspondence addressed principally to the Governor (GO39); Miscellaneous correspondence addressed to the Private Secretary (GO40); Correspondence received from colonial and State departments (GO41); Correspondence received from other colonies and States (GO42) Correspondence received on naval matters (GO48); and Correspondence received relating to foreign consuls in the Commonwealth (GO49).

The tabulation provides for date of writing, name of writer, subject, date answered and remarks. The latter column often indicates the decision made, the nature of the reply or other action taken. For the corresponding register of outward correspondence (1878- 1902), see GO57.

259 Harcourt-Administrator, 11 Apr. 1913, Conf. GO4/3.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

B. Correspondence sent

LETTERBOOKS OF GENERAL OUTWARD CORRESPONDENCE GO52 21 Nov. 1820-2 Oct. 1846, 7 Feb. 1857-24 Feb. 1912. 13 vols. 2'.

The characteristics of these volumes vary considerably according to the period, the chief differences being found between those before and those after the establishment of responsible government. Since the series begins before the establishment of the office of Colonial Secretary, much of the correspondence in the first volume (to 1824) is signed by the Lieutenant-Governor himself; the letters are addressed to the Northern Commandant (see CSO36), the Commandant at Macquarie Harbour (see CSO43), the Deputy Surveyor (see CSO38) and other officials. From the beginning of Arthur's period, as well as to officials and settlers within the Colony, many letters are addressed to British Departments (War Office, Treasury, Under-Secretary, Navy Commissioners) and to the Governors of other Australian colonies; often the letters are of a semi-personal nature: the eighth volume is confined to personal letters, covering the same period as GO52/7 (1837-43). Many are addressed to those officials who claimed the right to direct communication with the Governor (see the introductory note to this Part), and to settlers with whom the Governor was on terms of personal acquaintance. From 1857 many of the letters are of a more formal character, concerning the ceremonial functions of the Governor; many are signed by the Aide-de-Camp or the Private Secretary. Copies of the Governor's more important letters for the period 1857-86 were kept in a separate letterbook, not now available. From 1886 the nature of the correspondence again changes, becoming more official in character and including the Governors of other colonies and the Governor-General among the addressees.

To 1846 each volume (except the first) carries its own index of addressees, with sub- entries indicating the subject; the period 1869-74 is covered by a register, giving details of subject; and from 1878 to 1902 some letters are registered in GO57.

PRIVATE SECRETARY'S LETTERBOOKS GO53 2 May 1826-14 Jan. 1869. 7 vols and part of 1 vol. 1’3".

This series was not consistently reserved for the letters signed by the Private Secretary; many are signed by the Governor and in any case the distinction between the two kinds of letters varies from Governor to Governor. Some officials and settlers wrote direct to the Governor or to the Private Secretary rather than through the normal channel (see the introductory note to this Part), and the replies to many such communications are to be found here. There is no hard and fast distinction between this series and GO52, and both should be consulted in searching for replies to inward correspondence; some of the letters in GO39 and GO 40 are answered in the copies to be found here. There are indexes of addressees, with sub-entries indicative of subject, in each volume for the period August, 1826 to January, 1869.

LETTERBOOKS OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S GO54 MEMORANDA ADDRESSED TO THE COLONIAL SECRETARY 26 Jun. 1826-24 Jan. 1837. 7 vols. 1' 3".

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

For information on the origin of the minutes copied into this series, and their relation to the business methods of the Colonial Secretary, see p. vi of the General Introduction of Section 1 of the Guide. The minutes, which are numbered from 1 annually but later running on, convey instructions to the Colonial Secretary for his action in administrative affairs, and often indicate the substance of letters to be written, either in reply to letters received, or initiating a transaction. The memoranda, which are not numbered, deal with the same type of matters, but usually at greater length than the minutes. The series is closely related to the Colonial Secretary's correspondence in CSO1; one of the indexes to that series (CSO3/2, pp. 74-83) contains a list of the minutes, relating them to the files in the correspondence. The volumes themselves contain indexes to subjects, with sub-entries expanding the key-word, for the period August, 1828-August, 1834; and there is a register indicating subjects for the period August, 1826-August, 1827. The first and second volumes to some extent duplicate one another; the last volume, which overlaps its predecessor by eight months, is in the form of an index, but it is probably the only type of copy kept of the minutes, to which it refers exclusively. The arrangement is: key-word, date, full summary of contents, minute number, reference to despatch, if any.

LETTERBOOK OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S GO55 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESSED TO CROWN LAW OFFICERS 9 Nov. 1827-9 Sep. 1836. 1 vol. 2".

This volume is closely linked with the series of letterbooks described in Part 2 of Section 1 of the Guide (pp. 15-19); the distinction is that none of the letters copied here went through the Colonial Secretary, but were addressed by the Governor to the Attorney-General and sometimes to the Solicitor-General in accordance with the practice which gave these officers the right of direct access (see the introductory note to this Part). The letters convey instructions for the drafting of legislation or other legal instruments, and refer to the law officers all questions involving a legal interpretation, such as the applicability of British Acts, the legality of convict punishment, whether prosecutions may be made, and the protection of the legal rights of the Crown. In important matters the replies will be found as enclosures to the despatches in GO33; and the correspondence in CSO1 contains related material.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

LETTERBOOKS OF GOVERNOR’S MEMORANDA ADDRESSED GO56 TO MINISTERS 24 Dec. 1861-11 Jul. 1868, 2 Jan. 1870-14 Feb. 1888. 3 vols 3½".

The memoranda in these volumes contain the Governor's comments made in referring to his Ministers Secretary of State's despatches or other correspondence, or the views which he felt called upon to state on any other subject. There is therefore a great variety in the matters dealt with, and the series constitutes a valuable set of dispassionate comments on most of the issues of importance to the Governments of the day. In some cases the communications are addressed to individual Ministers (and sometimes judges), but for the most part they were for the Governor's advisers generally, as the members of Cabinet. Subjects include: defence, posts and telegraphs, natural resources and economic conditions, agriculture, intercolonial trade and customs, exhibitions, railways, judicial and administrative matters, parliamentary and constitutional questions, prison discipline, convict affairs. The first volume is severely water-damaged and none has any index or any other means of reference. Until 1883 the original memoranda and associated papers will be found in the correspondence records of the Chief Secretary's Record Group, and after that date in those of the Premier's Department. The last volume (September, 1877-January, 1880), a press copy book, contains the memoranda to which reference is made in the second volume, as well as copies of letters corresponding to the inward letters of GO19, 39, 48 and 49.

REGISTERS OF OUTWARD CORRESPONDENCE GO57 1 Oct. 1878-28 Feb. 1902. 2 vols. 3". These form the counterpart to the registers in GO51, and relate to the replies sent to the communications in the series set out thereunder, and to some of the copies in GO52. The tabulation provides for date of communication, subject, addressee and remarks.

TRANSMISSION REGISTER OF PAPERS REFFERED TO GO58 VARIOUS OFFICERS 9 Aug. 1859-5 May 1863. Part of 1 vol.

This is a rough daily register, kept to show the movement of papers referred out of Government House to heads of departments, Ministers, judges and others. Despatches are not included. The information given is: date of receipt, nature of document and to whom referred. After December, 1861 details of date referred, writer's name and address and when returned are also given.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

PART 3 - Miscellaneous Series, 1816-1933

The preceding two Parts describe the series of the two main classes into which the records of the Governor's Office naturally fall: despatches and correspondence. But there are a few series, not necessarily unimportant, which cannot be classified into either of these, and it is to them that this Part is devoted. The series, which are arranged by date of commencement, consist of Governor's Commissions and Instructions, compilations and copies of correspondence and other papers, registers of documents other than despatches and correspondence, Governor’s speeches opening Parliament and related material, and minor financial records.

COPIES OF OFFICIAL NOTICES IN THE HOBART TOWN GO59 GAZETTE 6 Jul. 1816-10 Aug. 1826. 2 vols. 3".

These volumes were probably compiled about 1826 for ready reference to all the official notices that had appeared in the Gazette that were still of significance at that date; by no means all the notices that had been published are copied, and those that are not are of course still available in the Gazette. Included here are Government and General Orders, Government Notices, proclamations, Colonial Acts (both of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land). The first volume (to 1824) has its own index. For later collections of such publications, see CSO55 and CSO56.

GOVERNORS' COMMISSIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS GO60 1825-55. 2 vols and 4 folders. 2".

Some of these documents are the originals, others are copies. The following are included: Darling's Commission as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of Van Diemen's Land, 16 July, 1825; Additional Instructions to Darling "or the Lieutenant-Governor or Commander in Chief of the said Island for the time being", 11 February, 1829; Gipps's Commission as Governor of Van Diemen's Land, 5 October, 1837; Gipps's Instructions as Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of Van Diemen’s Land, 10 October, 1837; Additional Instructions to Gipps as Governor of Van Diemen's Land, 13 October, 1839; Additional Instructions to Denison, 19 October, 1849; Fox Young's Instructions, 20 September, 1854; Warrant authorising Fox Young to appoint a certain number of members to the Legislative Council, 20 September, 1854.

For references to other Commissions and Instructions not included in this series, see the Introduction.

COPIES OF PAPERS RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL CLAIMS OF GO61 THE COLONY ON THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT 1845-67. 1 vol. ½”.

The subject of the division of financial responsibility for British convicts and associated charges in the Colony was one that was raised perennially, and the documents included in this series by no means exhaust the question. The copies are of Secretary's despatches and colonial Parliamentary Papers, and the chief matters discussed are convict and ex-convict

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group paupers and lunatics, the children of convicts, and the allocation of the cost of police and gaols.

COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM THE GO62 MIDLAND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION 1846-7. 1 vol. 1½”

In August, 1845 Lieutenant-Governor Eardley-Wilmot forwarded to the Secretary of State a petition signed by 1750 colonists protesting against the increase in the numbers of convicts arriving in the island, against the imposition of taxation for the support of these convicts, and calling for the immediate cessation of transportation; Eardley-Wilmot accompanied the petition with some remarks of his own, in which he characterised it as being exaggerated and erroneous and pointed out that many colonists of substance had not signed it. As a result of these remarks the Mid-land Agricultural Association decided that it should no longer consider Eardley-Wilmot as its patron, and this volume contains copies of some of the correspondence which took place as a result of this difference.

MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS GO63 1855-1930. 1 folder. ½"

Some of these documents may belong to series in Parts 1, 2 and 3, but it is not possible to place them from internal evidence. Subjects include colonial civil service qualifications, land laws of other colonies, meteorology in Australia, tables of precedence, honours. There are some undated copies of Governor's and Private Secretary’s correspondence.

All applications for free pardons had to be transmitted to the Secretary of State for Royal confirmation. This series registers such documents, transmitted as enclosures in despatches, and gives name of applicant, address, when referred to the Comptroller- General of Convicts, when applicant replied to and nature of reply. References to the despatch in which the applications were forwarded are included.

Conditional Pardons required the signature of the Governor, and this is a rough register of their receipt and return.

Grant deeds in this period had to bear the Governor's signature before they had legal effect; this register simply records the number of deeds received, when, and the date of their return.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

JOURNAL OF EXPENSES OF GOVERNMENT HOUSE GO67 ESTABLISHNENT Jan. 1862-Oct. 1863. Part of 1 vol.

A rough account, including such items as salary and wages of the Private Secretary and orderlies, expenditure on gas, coal, repairs, forage, newspapers, stationery.

GOVERNOR’S SPEECHES OPENING PARLIAMENT, GO68 ADDRESSES-IN-REPLY, ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN, AND ASSOCIATED PAPERS 22 Jul. 1874-29 Jan. 1933. 1 bundle. 2".

This series, consisting largely of the original printed copies and signed copies of the speeches and addresses is not complete, and may be supplemented from Papers printed in the Journals and Papers of Parliament. Occasionally related correspondence is included.

ORDERLY'S TRANSMISSION BOOKS GO69 15 Nov. 1904-31 Dec. 1914. 1 vol. and part of 1 vol. 2".

These are day-to-day journals recording the addresses to which the orderly delivered letters and articles, all in Hobart.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX A

Succession of Governors etc,

Lieutenant John Bowen, R.N. (Commandant), 11 Sep. 1803-16 Feb. 1804. Colonel David Collins, R.M., 16 Feb. 1804-24 Mar. 1810. Lieutenant Edward Lord, R.M., (Commandant), 24 Mar.-8 Jul. 1810. Captain John Murray, 73rd Regiment (Commandant), 8 Jul. 1810-20 Feb.1812. Major Andrew Geils, 73rd Regiment (Commandant), 20 Feb. 1812-4 Feb. 1813. Colonel Thomas Davey, R.M., 4 Feb. 1813-9 Apr. 1817. Colonel William Sorell, 43rd Regiment, 9 Apr. 1817-14 May 1824. Colonel George Arthur, 7th Regiment, 14 May 1824-29 Oct. 1836. Lieutenant Kenneth Snodgrassa 17th Regiment (Administrator), 1 Nov. 1836-5 Jan. 1837. Sir John Franklin, 6 Jan. 1837-21 Aug. 1843. Sir John E. Eardley-Wilmot, 21 Aug. 1843-13 Oct. 1846. Charles J. La Trobe, Esq. (Administrator), 13 Oct. 1846-25 Jan. 1847. Sir William T. Denison, 26 Jan. 1847-8 Jan. 1855. Sir Henry E. Fox Young, 8 Jan. 1855-10 Dec. 1861. Colonel Thomas F. Gore Browne, 25th Regiment, 11 Dec. 1861-30 Dec. 1868. Lieutenant-Colonel William C. Trevor, 14th Regiment (Administrator), 30 Dec. 1868-15 Jan. 1869. Charles Du Cane Esq., 15 Jan. 1869-28 Nov. 1874. Sir Francis Smith (Administrator), 30 Nov. 1874-13 Jan. 1875, Frederick A. Weld, Esq., 13 Jan. 1875-5 Apr. 1880. Sir Francis Smith (Administrator), 6 Apr.-21 Oct. 1880. Lieut.-General Sir John Henry Lefroy, R.A., (Administrator), 21 Oct. 1880-Dec. 1881. Sir George C. Strahan, R.A., 7 Dec. 1881-28 Oct. 1886. W. R. Giblin, Esq., (Administrator), 29 Oct.-18 Nov. 1886. Sir William L. Dobson (Administrator), 18 Nov. 1886-11 Mar. 1887. Sir Robert G. C. Hamilton, 11 Mar. 1887-30 Nov. 1892. Sir William L. Dobson (Administrator), 1 Dec. 1892-8 Aug. 1893. Rt. Hon. J. W. Joseph, Viscount Gormanston, 8 Aug. 1893-14 Aug. 1900.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Sir John Dodds (Administrator), 14 Aug. 1900-8 Nov. 1901. Sir Arthur E. Havelock, 8 Nov. 1901-16 Apr. 1904. Sir John Dodds (Lieutenant-Governor), 16 Apr.-28 Oct. 1904. Sir Gerald Strickland, 28 Oct. 1904-20 May 1909. Sir John Dodds (Lieutenant-Governor), 21 May-29 Sep. 1909. Sir Harry Barron, 29 Sep. 1909-8 Mar. 1913. Sir John Dodds (Lieutenant-Governor), 10 Mar.-4 June 1913. Sir William Ellison-Macartney, 4 Jun. 1913-31 Mar. 1917. Sir Herbert Nicholls (Administrator), 1 Apr.-6 Jul. 1917. Sir Francis A. Newdigate Newdegate, 6 Jul. 1917-9 Feb. 1920. Sir Herbert Nicholls (Administrator), 9 Feb.-16 Apr. 1920. Sir William L. Allardyce, 16 Apr. 1920-26 Jan. 1922. Sir Herbert Nicholls (Administrator), 26 Jan. 1922-30 Nov. 1923. Norman K. Ewing, Esq. (Administrator), 30 Nov. 1923-13 Jun. 1924. Sir Herbert Nicholls (Administrator), 13 Jun.-24 Dec. 1924. Sir James O’Grady, 23 Dec. 1924-23 Dec. 1930. Sir Herbert Nicholls (Lieutenant-Governor), 23 Dec. 1930-4 Aug. 1933. Sir Ernest Clark, 4 Aug. 1933-4 Aug. 1945.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX B

Succession of Private Secretaries

Note: In many cases it has not been possible to determine the concluding dates of office, but it may normally be assumed that each Private Secretary held office until his successor was appointed.

Thomas Allen Lascelles, c. Apr. 1813- c. Nov. 1816. William Alexander Ross, 12 Apr. 1817- c.17 Jan. 1818. Samuel Hood, 17 Jan.-30 Jun. 1818. Henry Edward Robinson, 1 Jul. 1818-14 May 1824. Charles Arthur, May 1824-28 Feb. 1827. William Thomas Parramore, 1 Mar. 1827-1829. Richard Lane, 31 Oct. 1832- Adam Turnbull, 13 Dec. 1833- James Burnett, 1 Nov. 1836- Alexander Maconochie, 6 Jan. 1837- Sep. 1838. Henry Elliott, 22 Sep. 1838- Ronald Campbell Gunn, 25 Jun. 1840- Feb. 1841. Francis Hartwell Henslowe, 4 Feb. 1841- Charles Eardley-Wilmot, 21 Aug. 1843- Augustus Hillier Eardley-Wilmot, 21 Dec. 1844-Jul. 1846. James Woodhouse Kirwan, 13 Jul. 1846- Charles Edward Stanley, 26 Jan. 1847- Andrew Clarke, 10 Sep. 1849- Robert Charles Chester Eardley-Wilmot, 20 Jun. 1853- Edward Last, 1 Aug. 1853- Benjamin Travers Solly, 30 Dec. 1868- (Acting) Charles Manners-Sutton Chichester, 15 Jan. 1869- 1874. Henry Weld-Blundell, 13 Jan. 1875- 1876. Windle Hill St Hill, 13 Jul, 1877- C. E. Hussey, 1880- George Browne, 1880- (Acting) John Fellowes Wallop, 7 Dec. 1881-

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

Henry William Bradley Robinson, 11 Mar. 1887- John Francis Alexander Rawlinson, 8 Aug. 1893- Warren Dodds, 14 Aug. 1900- Herbert Cecil Sheppard, 8 Nov. 1901- John Maclean Griffin, 28 Oct. 1904- George Brown, 1 Oct. 1906- (Honorary Private Secretary until 1918). William Otway Upton Cottrell-Dormer, 1 Sep. 1907- Philip Alexander Francis Spencer, 1 Sep. 1908- (Acting) Harry Ernest Cadell, 22 Jul. 1909- Beauchamp Albert Thomas Kerr-Pearse, 4 June 1913- Charles Lionel Grey Matthews Donaldson, 11 Jan. 1916- L. P. Booth, 1917- Sep. 1918. Eric John Carl Stopp, 17 Sep. 1918- Beauchamp Albert Kerr-Pearse, 16 Nov. 1919- Godfrey Wentworth Wentworth, 19 Apr. 1920- Lawrence Henry Pope, 6 Dec. 1920- Charles Stephen Simmons, 27 Jan. 1922- Eric John Carl Stopp, 4 Dec. 1923- (Acting) Neville Edgeworth Somers, 8 Jul. 1927-

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX C

Succession of Secretaries of State

Baron Hobart, Mar. 1801-May 1804 Sir William Molesworth, Jul-Oct.1855 Earl Camden, May 1804-Jul. 1805 Henry Labouchere, Esq., Oct. 1855-Feb.1858 Viscount Castlereagh, Jul. 1805-Feb. 1806 Viscount [E. H.] Stanley, Feb.-May 1858 William Windham, Esq., Feb. 1806-Mar Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton, May 1858-Jun. 1859 1807 Viscount Castlereagh, Mar. 1807-Oct. 1809 Duke of Newcastle, June 1859-Apr. 1864 Earl of Liverpool, Oct. 1809-Jun. 1812 E. Cardwell, Esq., Apr. 1864-Jun. 1866 Earl Bathurst, Jun. 1812-Apr. 1827 Earl of Carnarvon, Jun. 1866-Mar. 1867 Viscount Goderich, Apr.-Sep. 1827 Duke of Buckingham and Clarence, Mar. 1867- Dec. 1868 William Huskisson, Esq., Sep. 1827-May Earl Granville, Dec. 1868-Jul. 1870 1828 Sir George Murray, May 1828-Nov. 1830 Earl Kimberley, Jul. 1870-Feb. 1874 Viscount Goderich, Nov. 1830-May 1833 Earl of Carnarvon, Feb. 1874-Feb. 1878 E. G. Stanley, Esq., May 1833-Jun. 1834 Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Feb. 1878-Apr. 1880 T. Spring Rice, Esq., Jun.-Nov. 1834 Earl of Kimberley, Apr. 1880-Dec. 1882 Duke of Wellington, Nov.-Dec. 1834 Earl of Derby, Dec. 1882-June 1885 Earl of Aberdeen, Dec. 1834-Apr. 1835 Sir Frederick A. Stanley, Jun. 1885-Feb. 1886 Baron Glenelg, Apr. 1835-Feb. 1839 Earl Granville, Feb.-Aug. 1886 Marquis of Normanby, Feb.-Sep. 1839 Hon. Edward Stanhope, Aug. 1886-Jan. 1887 Lord John Russell, Sep. 1839-Sep. 1841 Lord Knutsford, Jan. 1887-Aug. 1892 Viscount [E. G.] Stanley, Sep. 1841-Dec. Marquis of Ripon, Aug. 1892-Jun. 1895 1845 W. E. Gladstone, Dec. 1845-Jul. 1846 Joseph Chamberlain, Esq., Jun. 1895-Sep. 1903 Earl Grey, Jul. 1846-Feb. 1852 Alfred Lyttleton, Esq., Sep. 1903-Dec. 1905 Sir J. Pakington, Feb.-Dec. 1852 Earl of Elgin, Dec. 1905-Apr. 1908 Duke of Newcastle, Dec. 1852-June 1854 Earl of Crewe, Apr. 1908-Nov.1910 Sir George Grey, June 1854-Feb. 1855 Lewis Harcourt, Esq., Nov. 1910-June 1915 Sidney Herbert, Esq., Feb. 1855 Andrew Bonar Law, Esq., June 1915-Mar. 1917 Lord John Russell, Feb.-Jul. 1855 W. Long, Esq., Mar. 1917-Jan. 1919 J. H. Thomas, Esq., Jan.-Nov. 1924 Viscount Milner, Jan. 1919-Feb. 1921 L. S. Amery, Esq., Nov. 1924-June 1929 Winston Churchill, Esq., Feb. 1921-Nov Sidney Webb, Esq., June 1929-Aug. 1931 1922 Duke of Devonshire, Nov. 1922-Jan. 1924 J. H. Thomas, Aug. 1931-

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX D

Succession of Launceston Commandants

Note: It has been possible to determine with certainty some of the following dates of office.

Lieutenant-Colonel William Patterson, 102nd Regiment, 15 Oct. 1804-Dec. 1808. Captain John Brabyn, 102nd Regiment, Dec. 1808-c. Oct 1809. Captain George Alexander Gordon, 73rd Regiment, 10 Feb. 1810-Jun. 1812. Captain John Ritchie, 73rd Regiment, 1 Jul. 1812-Jun. 1813. Lieutnenant-Colonel Andrew Geils, 73re Regiment, Jun. 1813 (apparently did not take office). Captain John Mackenzie, 46th Regiment, Mar. 1814-Oct. 1815. Major James Stewart, 46th Regiment, Oct. 1815-c. Mar. 1818. Major Gilbert Cimitiere, 48th Regiment, 14 Mar. 1818-Dec. 1822. Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Cameron, 3rd Regiment, 14 Dec. 1822-Apr. 1825. Lieutenant-Colonel William Balfour, 40th Regiment, 6 Apr. 1825-c. Mar. 1826. Major Edward Abbott, 102nd Regiment, 21 Mar. 1826-31 Jul. 1832. Major James W. Fairtlough, 63rd Regiment, 18 Sep. 1832-Dec. 1833. Major Thomas Fairweather, 21st Regiment, 4 Jan. 1834-23 Apr. 1835. Major George Deare, 21st Regiment, 23 Apr. - 7 Dec. 1835. Major Thomas Ryan, 50th Regiment, 7 Dec. 1835-May 1839. Major Frederick Mainwaring, 51st Regiment, 16 May 1839-30 Jun. 1840. Major Edward St Maur, 51st Regiment, 1 Jul. 1840-28 Feb. 1843. Major C. B. Cumberland, 96th Regiment, 1 Mar. 1843-30 Sep. 1845.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX E

Location of copies of despatches received and sent

i. Public Record Office, London

Microfilmed under the National Library-Mitchell Library Joint Copying Project.

DESPATCHES FROM THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART, TO THE SECRETARY OR UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE 1802-60.

P.R.O. No. Date of Despatch Microfilm Reel No. CO201/35 24 Dec. 1802-10 Nov. 1804 17 43 20 Feb. 1805-2 Sep. 1806 21 52 20 Apr. 1807-20 Jul. 1809 26 65 3 Apr. 1810 30 76 21-30 Sep. 1815 35-6 89 14 Dec. 1817 43 90 17 Dec. 1818 43 94 20 Jan. - 3 Jun. 1819 46 99 12 May - 30 Dec. 1820 48 103 2 Jan.-24 Dec. 1821 53 109 20 Apr.-28 Nov. 1822 99 143 30 May-18 Aug. 1823 128 152 1 Jan.-25 Dec. 1824 134 CO280/1-92* 7 Feb. 1825-30 Dec. 1837 230-87 93-249 1 Jan. 1838-29 Dec. 1849 475-577 250’-349” 1 Jan. 1850-2 Dec. 1860 687-752

* This volume contains letters to the Secretary of State other than despatches; despatches up to 30 Dec. 1837 are in vol. 84, reel 282; others, up to 1 Aug. 1837, are in vol. 90, reel 286.

‘ This volume is devoted to correspondence from “Public Offices”; despatches from 1 Jan. 1850 are in vol. 255, reel 691.

“ This volume is devoted to correspondence from “Public Offices and Miscellaneous”. The last despatch is in vol. 348, reel 752.

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

DESPATCHES FROM THE COMMANDANT, PORT DALRYMPLE, TO THE SECRETARY OR UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE 1805-10.

P.R.O No. Date of Despatch Microfilm Reel No. CO201/51 14 Nov. 1805-30 Jun. 1809 25 66 24 Feb. 1810 31

LETTERBOOKS OF DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OR UNDER- SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT 1803-72.

P.R.O No. Date of Despatch Microfilm Reel No. CO202/6-7 7 Feb.-11 Apr. 1803, 20 Feb.-19 56 Oct. 1812 8-10 1 Jun. 1814-4 Dec. 1824 214-15 CO408/1-13* 27 Jan. 1825-15 Jun. 1837 288-92 CO408/14-46 16 Jun. 1837-31 Jan. 1872 881-94

* This volume contains copies of domestic correspondence; despatches up to 15 June 1837 are in vol. 12, reel 292.

ii. Historical Records of Australia, Series III

DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OR UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART 1803-27.

Vol. 1: 7 Feb.-5 Apr. 1803, 20 Jun. Vol. 4: 10 Feb. 1821-30 Nov. 1825 1807, 19 May 1812 Vol. 2: 19 Oct. 1812-26 Oct. 1819 Vol. 5: 4 Dec. 1825-28 Mar. 1827 Vol. 3: 31 Jan.-26 Sep. 1820 Vol. 6: 1 Apr.-12 Dec. 1827

DESPATCHES FROM THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART, TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE 1803-27.

Vol. 1: 31 May 1803-20 Jul. 1809 Vol. 4: 2 Jan. 1821-15 Oct. 1825 Vol. 2: Jul. 1815-3 Jun. 1819 Vol. 5: 12 Dec. 1825-29 Mar. 1827 Vol. 3: 18 Jan.-30 Dec. 1820 Vol. 6: 5 Apr.-31 Dec. 1827

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

DESPATCHES FROM THE GOVERNOR-IN-CHIEF OR HIS SECRETARY TO THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART 1803-25.

Vol. 1: 18 Oct. 1803-20 Jun. 1812 Vol. 3: 5 Jan.-23 Dec. 1820 Vol. 2: 25 Jan. 1813-20 Nov. 1819 Vol. 4: 9 Jan. 1821-12 Nov. 1825

DESPATCHES FROM THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART, TO THE GOVERNOR-IN-CHIEF OR HIS SECRETARY 1803-25.

Vol. 1: 20 Sep. 1803-6 May 1812 Vol. 3: 13 Jan.-28 Dec. 1820 Vol. 2: 12 Nov. 1812-31 Dec. 1819 Vol. 4: 16 Jan. 1821-16 Aug. 1825

DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OR UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT 1808.

Vol. 1: 15 Sep.-18 Oct. 1808

DESPATCHES FROM THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT TO THE SECRETARY OR UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE 1805-10.

Vol. 1: 14 Nov. 1805-24 Feb. 1810

DESPATCHES FROM THE GOVERNOR-IN-CHIEF OR HIS SECRETARY TO THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT 1805-21.

Vol. 1: 6 Jan. 1805-12 Jun. 1812 Vol. 3: 12 Feb., 12 Dec. 1820 Vol. 2: 30 Jan. 1813-18 Aug. 1819 Vol. 4: 4 Jul. 1821

DESPATCHES FROM THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT TO THE GOVERNOR-IN CHIEF OR HIS SECRETARY 1804-25.

Vol. 1: 26 Nov. 1804-Mar. 1812 Vol. 4: 11 Jun.-12 Dec. 1825 Vol. 2: 20 Sep. 1815-5 Apr. 1819

DESPATCHES FROM THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT TO THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OR COMMANDANT, HOBART 1817.

Vol. 2 24 Mar. 1817

DESPATCHES FROM THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR, HOBART, TO THE NORTHERN COMMANDANT 1813-23.

Vol. 2: Feb. 1813-30 Dec. 1819 Vol. 4: 11 Aug. 1823 Vol. 3: 6 Jan.-15 Nov. 1820

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

iii. Mitchell Library, Sydney

DESPATCHES FROM THE SECRETARY OR UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR 1831-47 (originals and duplicates). Note: Right hand columns indicate locations 1831 18-28 Oct. A1339 24 Jan.-26 Feb. A1337 29 Oct. A1188 4 Mar. A1188 29 Oct.-31 Dec. A1339 20 Mar.-2 Nov. A1337 1840 1832 31 Jan. A1183 10 Feb.-22 May Box 2 8 Feb. A1339 21 Jun. A1188 12 Mar. A1183 22 Jun.-23 Jul. Box 2 2 May-24 Sep. A1339 1834 21 Dec. A1183 20 Jun. A1183 1842 1838 1-6 Jan. A1339 1-3 Jan. A1337 8 Jan. A1188 4 Jan. A1188 9 Jan. A1339 5 Jan.-19 May A1337 12 Jan. A1188 26 June A1188 15 Jan. A1339 27 Jun-12 Nov. A1337 17 Jan. A1183 1839 21-22 Jan. A1339 12 Jan.-27 Feb. A1337 23 Jan. A1183 1 Mar. A1337 26 Jan.-21 Feb. A1339 1-9 Mar. A1338 23 Feb. A1183 11 Mar. A1188 24 Feb.-23 Mar. A1339 11-28 Mar. A1338 5-8 Apr. A1340 30 Mar. Box 2 11 Apr. Box 2 1 Apr. A1338 12-25 Apr. A1340 2 Apr. A1183 26 Apr. Box 2 2 Apr. Box 2 28 Apr.-16 May A1340 3-4 Apr. A1338 18 May Box 2 5 Apr. Box 2 19-21 May A1340 6-13 Apr. A1338 23 May Box 2 15 Apr. A1183 25 May-2 Jul. A1340 16-23 Apr. A1338 6 Jul. Box 2 29 Apr. Box 2 6 Jul.-2 Aug. A1340 17 May-20 Jun. A1338 5 Aug. Box 2 21-22 Jun. Box 2 5-24 Aug. A1340 24 Jun.-4 Jul. A1338 25 Aug. A1183 4-5 Jul. A1138 26 Aug. A1340 10-11 Jul. Box 2 1 Sep.-20 Oct A1341 13-16 Jul. A1338 31 Oct. A1339 16 Jul. Box 2 2 Nov.-26 Dec A1341 17 Jul.-14 Aug. A1338 27 Dec. Box 2 14 Aug.-5 Sep. A1339 29-31 Dec. A1341 6 Sep. Box 2 1844 9 Sep.-16 Oct. A1339 22 Jan. A1341 17 Oct. A1188 10 Sep. A1183

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

10 Sep. A1341

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

11 Aug. A1342 1845 2 Sep. A1183 8 Jan.-5 Mar. A1341 3-10 Sep. A1342 6 Mar. A1175 15 Sep. A1183 7 Mar. A1183 16 Sep. Box 2 8-11 Mar. A1341 17 Sep.-8 Oct. A1342 21 Apr. A1342 9 Oct. A1183 26 Apr. Box 2 20 Oct.-2 Dec. A1342 28 Apr.-3 May A1183 3 Dec. A1183 6 May A1342 4 Dec. A1342 8-29 May A1183 6 Dec. A1183 31 May A1175 15-16 Dec. A1342 1-5 Jun. A1342 19 Dec. A1183 9 Jun. A1183 24-31 Dec. A1342 10-27 Jun. A1342 1846 27 Jun. Box 2 16-24 Mar. A1188 28 Jun.-4 Jul. A1342 30 Mar.-22 Dec. A1342 5 Jul. A1183 1847 7 Jul. A1174 8-13 Jan. A1342 8 Jul. A1183 17 Jan. A1188 10 Jul. A1342 2 Feb. A1188 11 Jul. Box 2 5-12 Feb. A1342 14 Jul A1342 13 Feb. A1343 15 Jul. A1183 17 Feb. A1175 16-19 Jul. A1342 18 Feb.-24 Mar A1343 26 Jul. A1183 26 Mar. A1183 28 Jul. A1342 26 Mar.-22 May A1343 4 Aug. A1183 22-24 May Box 2 5-6 Aug. A1342 25 May A1175 7 Aug. Box 2 25-29 May A1343 8 Aug. A1342 9 Aug. Box 2

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group

APPENDIX F

Conversion Table of Old Classification Numbers to New

Because of recent accession of Governor’s Office records and as a result of the study attending the compilation of this Section of the Guide, the whole of the Record Group has been re-classified; to avoid confusion from the quotation of references under the old classification (issued in November, 1955), the following table is appended.

Old Number New Number GO29/1-3 GO52/11-13 GO1/1-102 GO1/1-102 GO30/1 GO55/1 GO2/1-11 GO2/1-11 GO31/1-2 GO53/1-2 GO3/1 GO3/1 GO31/3-7 GO53/4-8 GO4/1 GO17/1 GO32/1 GO53/3 GO5/1 GO21/1 GO33/1-2 GO57/1-2 GO6/1-5 GO26/2-6 GO34/1-6 GO39/1-6 GO7/1 GO22/1 GO35/1 GO39/7 GO7.1/1 now in CSD GO36/1 GO62/1 GO8/1-7 GO23/3-9 GO37/1 not classified GO8/8-9 GO23/1-2 GO37/2-3 GO51/1-2 GO9/1-12 GO25/1-12 GO38/1 GO69/1 GO9/13-25 GO25/14-26 GO39/1 GO69/2 GO10/1-83 GO33/1-83 GO40/1 GO66/1 GO11/1-2 GO27/1-2 GO41/1 GO64/1 GO12/1 GO28/1 GO42/1 GO65/1 GO13/1-4 GO26/1-4 GO43/1-2 GO59/1-2 GO14/1 GO29/1 GO44/1-6 GO60/1-6 GO15/1 GO31/1 GO45/1 GO1/18/1 GO16/1 GO25/13 GO46/1 GO 43/1 GO16/2 GO32/1 GO47/1 GO 44/1 GO17/1 GO30/1 GO48/1 GO45/1 GO18/1 GO37/1 GO49/1 GO61/1 GO19/1-5 GO37/2-6 GO50/1 not classified GO 20/1-2 GO38/1-2 GO51/1-3 GO46/1-3 GO 21/1 GO52/1 GO52/1 GO67/1 GO 22/1 GO54/1 GO 22/2-5 GO54/3-6 GO 22/6 GO54/2 GO 23/1 GO54/7 GO 24/1-2 GO56/1-2 GO 25/1 GO56/3 GO 26/1 GO58/1 GO 27/1 GO52/6 GO 27/2 now in EC GO28/1-4 GO52/2-5 GO28/5 GO52/7 GO28/6 GO52/9 GO28/7 GO52/8 GO28/8 GO52/10

Guide to the Public Records of Tasmania – Section Two – Governor’s Office Record Group