BY HERBERT HEATON, M.A., M. COMM. 15 



quite clearly that personalities, invective, political or re- 

 ligious controversy would not be allowed to pass his cen- 

 sorsnip (29). To those who sent details of scandals, he 

 replied : "If what you say is true, the Supreme Court is the 

 iit place to reveal the facts, not a newspaper"' (30). Such 

 protests and disclaimers, however, did not placate the Go- 

 vernor. Veiled criticisms were being made in the press; 

 they must be stopped. In June or July, 1824, therefore, 

 Arthur endeavoured to assert his authority over the 

 Gazette, by claiming it as Government property. Bent 

 strenuously defended himself, declared that the paper be- 

 longed entirely to him, and sent Thomas, his editor, td lay 

 the case before Arthur's superior in Sydney, Sir Thomas 

 Brisbane. The verdict was entirely in Bent's favour (31), 

 and in the Gazette of October 8, 1824, a. mysterious and 

 triumphant editorial revealed sufficient of the facts to al- 

 low the public to guess the remainder. Thi& editorial was 

 assumed by many to be a veiled attack on Arthur, but 

 Thomas vigorously denied any such intention, in the fol- 

 lowing issue. "We bow down with all merited homage to 

 the (representative) of our glorious Monarch," concluded 

 the article, and in his refusal to publish anonymous attacks 

 on officials, Thomas showed that he had no intention of 

 being a bigoted partisan. 



These protests were of little avail, for the new Gover- 

 nor had quickly decided that action must be taken against 

 the Gazette. That determination grew as the editorials 

 and ''Colonist's" letters became bolder in their tone. First, 

 the police force was criticised. Then complaints made in 

 letters were enlarged upon. Editorials nearly all began 

 now with such sentences as "Much general inconvenience is 

 being felt," or "Repeated complaints have been made." 

 Real or imaginary scandals in the employment of convict 

 labour were dragged out, and the new harbour regulations 

 were said to be ruining the port. "Colonist" laboured at 

 great length to prove that Arthur had allowed himself to 

 be misled by a host of evil and interested subordinates; 

 that he had created a small araiy of sinecures for his 

 friends, with big salaries and little work ; that the colonial 

 revenue was therebv being squandered, and that meanwhile 

 farmers and merchants were trembling on the brink of 

 ruin (^32). The editor, possiblv intoxicated by the vigour 

 of this attack, wrote article after article in similar vein. 

 He pleaded with the Governor (33) to do something "to re- 

 nerve the drooping energies of Van Diemen's Land, and to 

 eventuallv realise those sanguine expectations" which had 

 brought the free settlers here. "If ever destiny decreed a 

 crisis at which a smiling colonv might either bv Minis- 



