Battye’s History of Western Australia contains this description of the convict system in Western Australia. It is a helpful document for those studying family history in the State.
APPENDIX 3. THE CONVICT SYSTEM.
Recognising it to be the duty of the historian to record facts rather than to discuss theories, this is not the place to enter at any length upon a discussion of the merits or demerits of the convict system from a moral point of view. Judged by the standard of pure ethics it must be admitted that the commingling of a convict element with the free inhabitants of a country cannot fail to have, at any rate, some demoralising influence with concomitant results.
At the same time it is equally certain that the cheap labour resulting from the presence of large numbers of convicts and ticket-of-leave men tends greatly to the material prosperity of the community. Whether it is possible to so organise a convict system as to give the material advantages without any lowering of the ethical standard of the people, and whether such was actually encompassed in Western Australia, is a matter for moralists to discuss. So far as the historian is concerned, two facts stand out—in the hope of a prosperous future the Western Australian colonists were on the whole prepared to take the risk of contamination, and the Secretary of State believed that he had evolved a wise system of transportation from which no lowering of the moral tone was likely to result.
That the new system of transportation differed greatly from that in vogue in the early days of New South Wales is unquestionable. In fact, throughout the whole period during which felons were transported to Western Australia, the terms convict system and penal settlement as applied to that country had nothing in common with the same terms when used to describe the state of affairs, often worse even than slavery, that existed in New South Wales, Norfolk island, and Van Diemen’s Land during the early part of the nineteenth century. Judged by the ordinary meaning attached to the expression, Western Australia was never a penal settlement. It was really a huge jail, the boundaries of which for the greater part of the criminals sent out were the limits of the colony itself. In accordance with the agreement made by the Home authorities with the colonists, the men sent out were to be able-bodied, not over forty-five years of age, well conducted in prison, and having at least half their sentences to run, such sentences on conviction having been for not less than seven years. It was also stipulated on the part of the colonists–who must have been very innocent if they thought the stipulation would ever be observed–that no criminals of a reckless or dangerous class should be sent out. Convicts from Irish jails were not to be transported, nor were female offenders. This last condition was strictly carried out, and to the absence of the corrupting effect of dissolute women is probably due the fact that so little moral taint remains upon the Western Australia of today.
A brief description of the system as it existed in the colony during the eighteen years of its operation may be of interest, particularly as it shows how great a change had come over the methods of dealing with convicts during the previous half-century. In the first place, the convicts before being transported were subjected to a probationary period of confinement in one of the great English prisons, and were selected, at any rate ostensibly, for their good behaviour and the apparent prospect of their redemption. On the voyage out every care, so far as was possible, was paid to their comfort and health, so that serious illness was infrequent and death a very rare event. When they arrived at Fremantle they were placed for about nine months in close confinement in the penal establishment–called by its compulsory occupants the College. Here they were compelled to observe a strict prison regime, which did not bear too harshly upon those amenable to discipline. For those, however,who in any way attempted to flout the system there were very definite punishments. A diet of bread and water, additional imprisonment, the chain-gang, the dark cell, the cat–up to one hundred lashes–and even the gallows found a place when considered necessary in the scheme of reformation. But the punitive side of the remodelled system never pressed so harshly that men, as in Norfolk island, drew lots for the privilege of committing murder in order to secure a trip to Sydney, followed by the attentions of the hangman. While the punishments were severe, the privileges for good conduct were many. A certain degree of association with one another was permitted , and conversation with visitors was allowed. A library was established for the use of the convicts, and lectures were periodically given within the prison. It is recorded that in 1857 Governor Kennedy and a party visited the convict establishment for the purpose of hearing a convict lecture on music, with illustrative items by the prison choir! During the period of confinement or probation within the prison the convicts were employed on necessary works of maintenance and on various public works in and around Fremantle. When it was over they were released on a modified or restricted ticket-of-leave and sent out in parties to erect public buildings in various parts of the colony, to equip country depots, and to make roads. While so employed the value of the work done was placed to their credit, and enabled them to repay the 15 pounds set down as the cost of their passage out, and which it was necessary for them to refund to the prison authorities before the coveted conditional pardon could be secured. These parties were not confined or under any kind of penal coercion. Good behaviour was practically assured by the fact that misconduct revoked the probationary ticket and extended the time of service before the conditional pardon could be obtained. The greatest liberty was allowed to the road-making parties. These consisted of from twenty to fifty of the best-behaved convicts, who lived in camps along the line of road to be made. They were under the care of one warder, or in some cases two, but there were also instances of parties being sent out without any official in charge. In 1853 the custom of making certain prisoners constables was introduced, and found to be satisfactory, after which the road parties were generally under the control of one warder and one constable. Considering the liberty enjoyed, it is amazing that there were so few attempts at escape. The reason is probably to be found in the words of Captain Henderson himself, that the colony itself was “a vast natural jail.” The escaping convict, even if he eluded capture, which was exceedingly improbable, stood a good chance of starving in the bush or dying of thirst. He also knew that with good behaviour his full ticket-of-leave, which practically meant freedom, was only a matter of a little time and not a great deal of labour. In fact, some of the descriptions of these road parties scarcely remind us of the dreadful and dreaded “system.” Writing in 1864, a special correspondent of the Melbourne Argus says: “No one can say that the convicts work hard, and, as far as my experience goes, I found them remarkably comfortable both as regards shelter and diet. They are always as hospitable as they can be to a visitor. I put up several nights with road parties, and partook of meals with them which any man might heartily enjoy. The meal over, the men would produce their tame cockatoos or opossums, would enjoy a smoke or a stroll, would read books from the prison library, or spin yarns by the blazing fire. I found them all eager for information regarding t’other side; as they call the eastern colonies, and one and all stated their determination to get there. After an evening spent thus, we would turn in to comfortable beds and be up early next morning for a wash in the creek. If they do not return thanks for having their lives cast in pleasant places, the men are a most ungrateful set.”
The duration of this period of probation, which had to be served before full ticket-of-leave was granted, varied, of course, with the term of the original sentence. It also depended on the behaviour of the convict himself. Prior to 1857 the date upon which a prisoner serving a certain sentence would receive his ticket was determined by a percentage method; after 1857 by a system of marks adopted by Captain Henderson from that compiled by Captain Knight for the penitentiaries of Ireland. Under either method a convict sentenced to fifteen years could in ordinary circumstances secure his ticket at the end of the fourth year. He could, however, behave so excellently as to secure it in three, or so execrably as never to get it at all.
With the system of marks was coupled a system of gratuities. no convict, while in prison, had any claim to payment for his services, but as a reward for industry and good conduct received a gratuity of 2 pence for every six marks earned by him. This could be forfeited, wholly or in part, by misconduct, and in case of escape the cost of capture was charged against the gratuities. Thus by the time he was due for ticket-of-leave the convict was sure of having some money in his pocket.
With his ticket-of-leave, the convict reached another stage in his progress toward complete liberty, though he was still subject to many and severe restrictions. The prison was behind him, no warder watched over him; he was free to seek outside employment and to enjoy the fruits of his labours; but he must never lose possession of his ticket–a parchment document giving his name, number, description, age, and condition. Printed on its face were the conditions by which he must be guided. He was assigned to a certain district, and without the consent of the Comptroller-General or Resident Magistrate was not permitted to leave it. If he travelled from one town to another he must go by the usual road or by such road as his pass directed, and must report to the police both his arrival in and departure from a town. After reaching his assigned district he was allowed a fortnight during which to find work for himself; if unsuccessful he had to return to the penal establishment and was then sent to one of the country depots. From the depot he could be hired by a settler, and was compelled to take whatever wages were offered. According to the instructions of the Home authorities, the holder of a ticket-of-leave who entered the service of a settler was compelled to remain there for twelve months. This regulation was, however, found to be impracticable, and therefore was not enforced. Every change of master, as well as every change of residence, had to be endorsed on the ticket. The ticket-of-leave man was permitted to acquire property, either leasehold or freehold, and could appear in any action or suit in the courts. He could compel his employer to carry out a contract with him, and was allowed to marry or to obtain his wife and family from England free of expense. But with all these privileges the eye of the authorities was always upon him. If he was guilty of any misconduct, whatever property he had acquired became the possession ofthe Crown. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts he could be arrested without warrant, and at the instance of a magistrate be awarded a term of imprisonment varying in length from one to three years. He must not carry firearms or be found upon a ship without permission, and between ten o’clock at night and daybreak he was not allowed to be away from his place of residence. Both the magistrate and the police of his district must practically be aware of his every action. The convict who, for a period determined by the length of his original sentence, managed to observe the conditions and avoid the snares and pitfalls of his ticket-of-leave became entitled to the much coveted conditional pardon. This document, which was granted only by the Secretary of State through the Governor, removed all restrictions, except one, upon the liberty of the holder. He could not return to Great Britain, nor, by special legislation, to Victoria or South Australia, until the whole term of his sentence had expired. The restrictions as regards the eastern colonies had been found necessary owing to the fact that the gold discoveries had attracted large numbers of conditional-pardon men, some of whom, in the absence of restraint, returned to their former methods of evil living. According to the evidence of Governor Fitzgerald before a committee of the House of Lords in 1856, it was only the imposition of these restrictions that prevented every conditional pardon holder leaving Western Australia for the eastern goldfields. The practice of issuing conditional pardons was not, it is said, viewed with favour by the local officials of the system. That can scarcely have been the case, as in 1863 we find the Secretary of State drawing attention to the ease with which conditional pardons could be obtained in Western Australia, and suspending their operation as regards prisoners under sentence of twenty years or more. Shortly afterwards the conditions under which these pardons were granted were made much more severe, a course which was expected to cause considerable trouble. That, however, never eventuated, as in 1864 the Governor was notified that transportation to the colony would cease entirely in three years from that date.
The above sketch describes substantially, though shortly, the convict system as it existed in Western Australia. That it was formulated on sound and humane lines is undoubted. Its underlying principle was remedial–to reform the prisoner and to offer him every inducement to once more become a respected member of society. Even in the hands of inhuman officials, such as those we read of in earlier records, it could never have brought about the awful horrors of Van Diemen’s Land, though it might have gone some distance along the path. The success that it achieved was in the main due to the wisdom and capability of the officers, more particularly to the Comptroller-General, Captain (afterwards Sir) E.Y.W. Henderson, who, with infinite tact, perseverance, and impartiality, combined with a sound judgment, organised and controlled the whole system in Western Australia. That it was hardly penal is quite evident. Even the Argus correspondent, sent specially to find out the weak spots, and so strengthen the agitation against transportation to any part of Australia which was then being pursued with vigour in the eastern colonies, admitted that “the West Australian convict system has many excellent points. It does not, as was the case under the old assignment arrangements of New South Wales and Tasmania, place the convict at the mercy of a master, who may be both brutal and vicious. Neither is his punishment, as was the case at Norfolk Island, simply cruel and vindictive. The men have a constant inducement to behave well, as they know that by doing so they better their condition. During the probationary stage they are aware that each mark they earn brings them nearer to their ticket-of-leave, and when they obtain these a continuance of good behaviour has been required to entitle them to their conditional pardons. This requiring a man to find employment before he is liberated upon his ticket works well, forcing him for a time, at least, into habits of industry. During his detention on the roads he sees the settlers and learns what is to be done, and by the time he has served his ticket-of-leave out, and is wholly thrown upon his own resources, he ought to have acquired some little money and a full measure of colonial experience.”
Given good behaviour, the life of the convict was not unhappy. Cut off from his old associations, he had every chance of beginning life afresh, and in some instances so appreciated the chance that he achieved more than a competency. In any case his life was more comfortable than that of a free labourer in England, if not in the colony itself. The evidence of Royal Commissions and convict officers repeatedly shows that transportation to Western Australia was actually sought for. Of course, not all the convicts transported were reformed. A proportion, the scum of English cities, remained untouched by remedial measures, and during the whole term of their residence in the colony these were a menace and dread to the settlers, being often debarred from criminal acts only by the want of opportunity. If the original intention to introduce only the best class of convicts had been carried out, this phase would probably not have made its presence felt, but, as Captain Henderson stated in 1856, the English prison authorities were sending out “the men they do not hang.” The joint committee appointed in 1862 also affirmed that “it has been shown that in one case the Governor of Chatham Prison was specially instructed to select for embarkation the convicts least fit to be discharged at home.” Fortunately Western Australia was saved from the crowning iniquity of a convict system–the transportation of vicious and abandoned women, though some women introduced in 1856 from London workhouses proved almost as bad.
Considered as a whole it may be said that the convict system in Western Australia was conducted on such lines as to ensure the least possible baneful effect. Except that the stigma of once having been a penal settlement must always remain, that effect has become a vanishing quantity.
Whether the colonists of those early days could have achieved success without the introduction of convict labour it is, perhaps, impossible to say. But whatever material advantages accrued from the convicts, they were not, and could not be, sufficient to justify their introduction. With brave hearts the early settlers founded the colony on the proud principle that it was to be free. In the face of adversity they yielded up their principle on the altar of expediency, and all that one can say is that the fact that they were compelled to do so is greatly to be deplored.
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED FOR APPENDIX 3.
Dispatches between Colonial Office and Governor 1850 to 1868.
Great Britain Parliamentary Papers:
Papers and correspondence on convict discipline and transportation presented to Parliament by command: 1851 14 May and 4 August; 1852 30 April and 13 December; 1853 18 July; 1854 May; 1855 February and August; 1856 2 June; 1857 21 March and 25 August; 1859 August; 1860 Number 2701; 1861 March; 1862 8 May; 1863 24 July.
Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords 10 July 1856.
Reports of Select Committees of the House of Commons on Transportation, June to July 1856 and 28 May 1861.
Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the operation of the Acts relating to transportation, 1863 Command Paper 6457.
Grellet, H.R. Case of England and Western Australia in respect to
Transportation London 1864.
Inquirer newspaper 1850 to 1868.
Perth Gazette newspaper 1850 to 1868.
Records of Colonial Secretary’s Office Western Australia 1850 to 1868.
Willoughby, H. British Convict in Western Australia London 1865.
Battye, J S. 1924. A History of Western Australia, Appendix 3
Leave a Reply
Your email is safe with us.