22 THE EARLY TASMANIAN PRESS, ETC. 



Colonic, which was published daily for a time, had as its 

 editor a wild, headstrong journalist, Gilbert Robertson. 

 Eobertson had no appreciation of the need for verifying 

 one's facts, and was always ready to print any story if it 

 reflected adversely on the authorities. This unfortunate 

 faculty eventually brought Robertson into conflict with 

 Arthur, and in 1835 he was sued for four distinct libels. 



The nature of these libels illustrates the general na- 

 ture of the scores of accusations which the two papers 

 were constantly bringing against the Government. The 

 first was that Arthur had, after the enrolment of a grant 

 of land, made a correction of a clerical error, with the im- 

 putation that if he could correct clerical mistakes, he 

 might also commit more serious alterations in deeds, 

 amounting to forgery. For this insinuation Robertson, 

 who Vy-as unable to prove his assertion, was sentenced to 

 four months' imprisonment and a fine of £60. The second 

 libel was an accusation that the Governor had appropriated 

 hay from the Government farm at New Town for his own 

 private use, a charge amounting to larceny. Tliis brought 

 on Robertson's head a fine of £120, and eight months' im- 

 prisonment. Tlie third libel was against Mr. T. W. Row- 

 lands, attorney of the Supreme Court, and for this offence 

 the unlucky eclitor received a sentence of £20 fine and one 

 month's imprisonment. Whilst he was serving his ac- 

 cumulated period of thirteen months in gaol, a^ fourth 

 charge was brought against him, that he had libellously 

 attemnted to defame the Governor and his nephew, Cap- 

 tain Montagu. Robertson had charged Montagu with 

 having: used a large quantity of Government materials and 

 labour in building himself a ''mansion" in Hampdcn-row, 

 and afterwards, to cover his offence, had obtained an ante- 

 dated letter of license from Arthur, sanctioning the use of 

 sucn materials. Tliis last case was tried before Judge 

 Montagu, a relative of the plaintiff, and Robertson, who 

 was unable to substantiate his charges, received a severe 

 handling from both judge and counsel for the prosecution. 

 The latter declared that the charge made by Robertson 

 ''was as false as if the Father of Lies himself had come up 

 from the bottomless abyss, and communicated it to the 

 True ColoniH" (55). The judge, in sentencing him to 

 twelve months' imprisonment and a fine of £50, used the 

 most vigorous language. The libel was "false as hell," 

 the editor was "the tool of a miserable party of agitated 

 disturbers" ; he was prostrating his intellect "in so de- 

 based, detestable, and abominable a service," and was pub- 

 lishing articles which were "a pest even to Botanv Bay" 

 (56). 



