entitled to the benefit of their services without any other tax than
might be levied by their fingers. This earnest protest was not without
success; but it became, afterwards, a potent weapon in the hands of
those who pronounced transportation a failure.[214]

The arrival of many hundreds, whose previous habits were far from
respectable, increased the difficulties of penal government. The former
marked division of classes was confounded: the emigrant laborer was the
companion of the prisoner of the crown; but, in law, the equal of the
prisoner's master. This addition was greatly deplored, both by the
Governor and the press. It was perceived that great organic changes must
follow the influx of free men, whose interest would run in a direction
entirely opposite to penal institutions. Thus, almost instantly, a
change became perceptible: the high value of prison labor was reduced,
and employers hostile to the government could afford to defy its power.
The emigrant laborers formed an intermediate class, which detested the
espionage and insolence of a convict constabulary, and was disposed to
resent the haughty spirit which slavery has ever generated in the ruling
classes.

In 1835, the feeling in opposition to transportation was strongly
expressed by certain portions of the people. A meeting was called, under
the auspices of Messrs. Kemp, Gellibrand, Hackett, Thomas Horne, and
others, which complained that the hope entertained, that the colony
might ultimately be freed from its penal character, had been
disappointed, and that the colonists "were made materials for the
punishment of British offenders;" were considered only as the "occupants
of a large prison;"--phrases of Arthur--and that "this penal character
had recently increased; thus violating the feelings of the adult, and
barbarising the habits and demoralising the principles of the rising
generation." This meeting, at which the sheriff presided, called by
public advertisement, was perhaps _de jure_ a meeting of the colony; but
the sheriff refused to attach his signature, lest the petition should be
taken as that of the settlers in general, whose opinions it certainly
did not then represent.

Arthur, in his despatch, endeavoured to neutralise its possible
influence, at the same time intimating that he had "long foreseen that
abolition would become a popular question." He, however, maintained that
the emigrant, knowing the object of the settlement, had no right to
c