Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/81

This page has been validated.

W. W. (Afterwards LORD) GRENVILLE ON NORFOLK ID.

53

in lieu of those which the masters of the transports had originally left behind, an oath might be administered about the facts, and that, to those petitioners "whose behaviour merited such indulgence," King might grant lands to be cultivated for the benefit of the grantees. If their allegations about their sentences should be found true, their grants would be increased; if found untrue, the penalty would be loss of the land and severe punishment. Cultivation of gardens was sedulously promoted in the meantime.

In Nov., 1789, Phillip congratulated King on the success attained at Norfolk Island, adding, "and I am, sir, sensible how much it is owing to your good conduct and perseverance. The richness of the soil, though the area cultivated was small, gave hope of abundant crops at the island, and the maize especially aroused hopes.^[1] Fishing-lines had been made of the native flax, but the manufacture was not understood, and King suggested that information as to the Maori methods should be obtained (6th Dec., 1789).

The island with a doubtful supply of daily bread had no charms for some of the convicts. Again Phillip wrote (Jan., 1790): "Those convicts who say their times are expired and wish to return to this settlement shall be sent for as soon as I hear from England, till when it is not possible to know whose times are expired, or the time for which any convict has been sentenced." It jars upon the feelings to find that women were flogged upon some occasions. On Christmas Day some attempt was made to arouse kindly feelings proper to the day. Divine service was performed at ten o'clock. Two pigs were killed, and an extra allowance of meat and flour was issued to all on the island.

↑ It excites a simile to notice that the Secretary of State (Grenville), cheered by the accounts of the little island, wrote (June, 1789) that, but for the great labour and expense already incurred at Sydney, he would, owing to its fertility, have been "inclined to recommend that Norfolk Island be made the principal settlement." Phillip wrote (June, 1790) that there was one insurmountable objection—"there is no harbour or good roadstead, and landing provisions is attended with some difficulties"—and added that King, "who made the settlement—an officer of merit and who could ill be spared, 'was on his way home' to give that information which could not so well be conveyed in letters."

[1] It excites a simile to notice that the Secretary of State (Grenville), cheered by the accounts of the little island, wrote (June, 1789) that, but for the great labour and expense already incurred at Sydney, he would, owing to its fertility, have been "inclined to recommend that Norfolk Island be made the principal settlement." Phillip wrote (June, 1790) that there was one insurmountable objection—"there is no harbour or good roadstead, and landing provisions is attended with some difficulties"—and added that King, "who made the settlement—an officer of merit and who could ill be spared, 'was on his way home' to give that information which could not so well be conveyed in letters."

[1]