THE SETTLEMENT OF PORTLAND BAY 85 



or other circumstances, extend the settlement of the territory to the 

 quarter where Mr. Henty may have established himself". It was 

 not much, certainly, but it was the first qualification of an absolute 

 refusal, and on this slender thread of encouragement the Henty 

 family was fain to rest until some attempt should be made to disturb 

 them. Probably they were not justified in the expectations with 

 which it animated them, for the promise, if such it could be called, 

 was extremely guarded, and the disapproval was unequivocal. It 

 was all, however, that the founder of the family ever had to look for- 

 ward to as the recompense for his large expenditure and courageous 

 enterprise, and he was spared the denouement, for he died in October, 

 1839, when everything, except the unsettled question of his tenure, 

 was prospering with all his sons. 



The year after the death of Mr. Henty, the Government of 

 New South Wales, having caused a township to be surveyed at 

 Portland Bay, intimated their intention of offering allotments for 

 sale in Melbourne, in entire disregard of the holdings of the Henty 

 family. This necessitated renewed demonstrations, and this time 

 the brothers addressed Sir George Gipps in Sydney, setting forth 

 that, relying upon the implied promise of Lord Aberdeen, they had 

 erected two substantial houses, one of them of twelve rooms, and a 

 number of minor buildings, had fenced in one paddock of 135 acres, 

 most of which had been cleared and grubbed at a cost of 25 per 

 acre and was then under crop, and had altogether spent from 

 8,000 to 10,000 in buildings, fencing, clearing and improvements, 

 which included the formation of roads, and the building of bridges 

 for the general convenience of the district. Notwithstanding these 

 admitted facts, and the further important one that they had in their 

 employ no less than fifty-three persons, all free servants and 

 labourers, decently housed and fairly paid, the Executive Council 

 at Sydney failed to " perceive any grounds on which the case can 

 be distinguished from those of other unauthorised occupiers ". 



Sir George Gipps even went further, for in a despatch sent to 

 the Secretary of State in April, 1840, enclosing a copy of this latest 

 appeal, he says that so far from admitting that the Messrs. Henty 

 had done good service by opening up a country which might 

 otherwise have remained unoccupied for many years, he looked 



