at once spread that the punishment had been enormously severe, and the immediate cause of death. An outcry arose against the governor, led by Wentworth, the ‘Australian patriot,’ one of the editors of the ‘Australian,’ who in a pamphlet entitled ‘The Impeachment’ declared his intention of sending Darling to the gallows in the steps of Governor Wall. The noisy attempt to hold Darling directly answerable for the man's death fell through; but the ill-advised if not illegal character of the punishment appears to have been ultimately lost sight of amid the manifold accusations of harshness towards individuals and favouritism in the disposal of crown lands with which Darling was assailed. In 1828 the case of Sudds and Thompson was brought before the House of Commons by Joseph Hume, and further inquiries were promised by Sir George Murray, then secretary of state for the colonies, the results of which were published in ‘Parliamentary Papers, Accounts and Papers,’ 1828, xxi. 691, 1830, xxix. 339, 1831–2, xxxiii. 439. Another case which attracted much attention from the press at home was that of Captain Robert Robison, New South Wales Veteran Companies. This officer, who belonged to a military family and had himself done good service in the Peninsula and India, incurred Darling's displeasure in connection with the previous case, and was tried by court-martial and sentenced to be dismissed the army. The stories of the packing of the court and the bias of the members may be taken at their worth; but the records remain to show that this luckless officer, whatever may have been the just measure of his offending, was subjected to something very like official persecution. A married man depending on his profession, he was kept in arrest and without pay at Sydney for two years after conviction, while his sentence was referred to the Horse Guards. Despite this punishment, and the fact that he was sentenced to be dismissed, not cashiered, his repeated applications to be allowed to receive some of the money he had invested in his commissions, or the grant of land which was a condition of service in the veteran companies, were persistently refused; and some years after he had thus been beggared he was imprisoned in the king's bench for alleged libels in certain London papers which had taken up his case (see Parl. Papers, Reps. of Committees, 1835, vi., the appendix to which contains the judgment of Chief-justice Denman, 15 June 1835). After a troubled rule of six years Darling was relieved by Sir Richard Bourke [q. v.] He embarked for home on 21 Oct. 1831. No demonstrations, either of regret or joy, attended his departure. A general illumination was proposed, but save from a solitary newspaper office met with no response. A fairly written review of his government is given in Braim's ‘History of New South Wales,’ i. 53–74, in which its chief merit is stated to have been the order and despatch introduced into the various government departments. It was a stage in the commercial growth of New South Wales, and, thanks to Sturt (at one time Darling's military secretary) and other explorers, a period of geographical discovery, owing to which Darling's name is repeated in Australian topography beyond that of any other governor. The success of Sir Richard Bourke is perhaps the most significant commentary on Darling's failure. A grossly personal attack on Darling, under the signature ‘Miles,’ appeared in the ‘Morning Chronicle’ on 14 Dec. 1831, and letters in the ‘Times’ and other papers preceded and followed, which manifest some confusion of ideas respecting Darling's antecedents. The continued representations of his misgovernment made in the House of Commons by Messrs. Maurice O'Connell and Joseph Hume at length resulted in the appointment of a select committee of the House of Commons ‘to inquire into the conduct of General Darling whilst governor of New South Wales, particularly with regard to grants of crown lands, his treatment of the public press, the case of Captain Robison, New South Wales Veteran Companies, and the alleged instances of cruelty to the soldiers Sudds and Thompson.’ The committee, which included among others Lord Stanley, Sir Henry Hardinge, H. Bulwer Lytton, Horace Twiss, Maurice and John O'Connell, Joseph Hume, Wakley, W. E. Gladstone, Perronet Thompson, and Dr. Bowring, sat in July 1835, and, ‘without entering into any details of the evidence or of the grounds on which they arrived at their conclusions,’ reported that ‘the conduct of General Darling with respect to the punishment inflicted on Sudds and Thompson, under the peculiar circumstances of the colony, especially at that period, and of repeated instances of misconduct on the part of the soldiery similar to that for which the individuals in question were punished, was entirely free from blame, and that there appears to have been nothing in his subsequent conduct in relation to the two soldiers, or in the reports thereof he forwarded home, inconsistent with his character as an officer and a gentleman.’ The committee went on to report further that the petition of Mr. Robert Dawson could not with advantage be investigated by the committee, and that no evidence was forthcoming on the remaining charges in
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 14.djvu/66
