Page:History of West Australia.djvu/249

 Rh

Acting Comptroller-General "lodging allowance" at the rate of £100 per annum. The regulations entitled the official to such an allowance, but as he resided at Government House it was not likely that he would apply the money to the purpose for which he received it, "unless," writes the Gazette, "indeed, His Excellency intends to charge him rent for the rooms he occupies in his residence, in which case of course the amount will be placed to the credit of the Colonial Revenue under the head of 'Miscellaneous Receipts.'"

Charges of inefficiency were repeatedly made against Mr. Hampton. Probably because of the unpopularity and questionable wisdom of his appointment, some of these were biassed and without justification. It was said that the efficiency of the system was greatly impaired under his rule, and that the convicts were not nearly so amenable to restraint. Cases of attempted escapes became numerous, and were imputed to the lack of foresight of the Acting Comptroller-General in sending out on road parties men who should have been immured in the Establishment at Fremantle, thus endangering the life and property of settlers. It was also stated that he was so arrogant in his authority that for the slightest pretext well behaved convicts were placed in the chain gangs. It is well authenticated that the size of these gangs was greatly increased. The inefficiency of Mr. Hampton struck a strong blow on the system; and men were made to suffer without deserving it.

Striking proofs of his unsatisfactory administration came to light. Within eight months ending in March, 1867, no fewer than ninety convicts attempted to escape either from the Fremantle prison or from road parties, a number about treble that of any similar period. Ugly accusations of tyranny were chronicled. The Gazette heaped opprobrium on Governor Hampton and his son when in March, 1867, it announced that the Board of Visiting Magistrates had been abolished, an institution, it averred, which afforded the prisoners the only protection they possessed against tyranny and oppression. That severe measures were taken with some prisoners was suggested in evidence given before the Supreme Court in October, 1867. A convict charged with attempting to murder a warder in the Fremantle prison explained that harsh treatment had made him desperate and regardless of life. He was placed in solitary confinement in a stone cell with a concrete floor. One night, while in bed, the accused said, Mr. Hampton entered his cell, and after ordering the bed, bedding, and clothes to be taken away, left him to pass the night in the bare cell with nothing but a shirt to cover him. The following day his clothes were returned, but 28lb. irons and handcuffs were placed on him instead of the 14lb. irons he had previously worn. Four days afterwards Mr. Hampton again visited him—at night—and thereafter, says the newspaper report of the evidence, "for twenty-two days the man remained under the same treatment in the cold damp cell, without bedding, lying like a brute curled up on the stone floor. The impression this statement made upon the jury, before whom the case was tried, was evidently a conviction that the man was right in attributing to it a tendency, as he said, to make him desperate, and a favourable verdict was given." A further case is attested where a convict who had barricaded himself in his cell was left for seventy-two hours in darkness without food or water.

The London Review of 7th September, 1867, in an article on this subject refers to another glaring instance of Mr. Hampton's administration:—"Eight men having been charged with running away from the Fremantle Bridge, the magistrate before whom they were brought said he was directed by the Governor to sentence them to two years' hard labour in irons, and this remarkable judgment having been delivered, the Acting Comptroller-General stood up and read the following additional sentence from the Governor for the same offence—'These men are to be kept in dark cells on bread and water until the surgeon reports they can bear it no longer without danger to their lives.' We have no desire to shield the Australian convicts from the just punishment which their offences deserve, but they should not be deprived of that protection the law affords them."

Some surviving settlers and convict officials of that period acquiesce in condemning Mr. Hampton, and allege that many more serious contraventions of justice than were made public were imputed to him. Both he and his father evidently believed in the old principles of convict discipline, and sought to break the dogged spirit of sullen men by autocratic severity. Those infringing the regulations were made desperate examples of to their fellow prisoners. So unsettled and disturbed did convicts become that settlers were in a state of apprehension that some fearful outbreak would occur. Thus for a short period the ideal of the system, so well established by Comptroller-General Henderson, was sullied by the foolish actions of an incompetent young man. That such an onerous appointment—one where the official had supreme control over the lives of hundreds of men—should be so lightly given was highly unwise. Governor Hampton was rebuked by the Imperial Government, and colonial Governors were warned not to give positions of emolument to their relatives.

The old system was reverted to when on 15th May, 1867, Mr. Wakeford, appointed in England, arrived in Perth, and assumed the duties of Comptroller-General without delay. Mr. Wakeford enquired into the circumstances under which prisoners were receiving special punishment, and, it is openly stated, released numbers of them. The chain gangs were greatly reduced in size, and, under his calm judicial administration, were almost done away with.

But though Governor Hampton was a stern martinet, he was a successful controller of public works. It was decided early in 1867 to erect a Town Hall in Perth by convict labour, and on the 24th May the corner stone of that prominent building was laid by Governor Hampton with appropriate ceremony. Most of the skilled labour was concentrated on the building while the unskilled was employed on the roads. In 1864 the old Town Trust or Council of Wardens was amended by Act of Parliament. Perth was divided into three wards, each of which was empowered to elect three representatives annually; a chairman was elected by the general body of ratepayers instead of, as before, by the Council. The functions of the Council consisted principally in the levying of assessments, and the expenditure of the funds collected in the repairs of streets and other civic improvements. The members of the Council in 1867 were Messrs. J.G.C. Carr (chairman), Glyde, Armstrong, Haysom, Maycock, Vincent, Padbury, B. Smith, and E. Birch.

In June, 1867, there were 123 men and ten warders engaged on the Albany Road. The 12th November was made a notable gala day. It was expected that in 1867 the Duke of Edinburgh would visit Western Australia, but he was unable just then to gratify local patriotism. The Perth and Helena Bridges were to have been opened by him, but Governor Hampton now performed the interesting and important ceremonies. The