he
details of his government, and his perseverance as a despatch writer
were universally admitted: a large proportion of his time he spent in
his office, and toiled with an assiduity which would have been fatal to
ordinary men. It was commonly stated that he was not very accessible;
but he willingly heard those whose education and habits qualified them
to suggest. Persons of every rank were admitted to an audience on a
slight pretence. He was quick in estimating the characters and
capacities of all who approached him.

The executive council was useful to Arthur, without obstructing his
measures. When he resolved on a project, he would nominate a board, and
obtain its sanction. When his private views were opposed to his
instructions he affected impartiality, and seemed to yield rather than
to guide. These artifices were well understood; but the colony often
approved the object, and admired the ingenuity of its execution. A new
colonial minister, in the hurry of his office, gladly surrendered to the
governor's judgment a question often beyond his comprehension, and which
to resist it was necessary to understand. Thus it was ordered to execute
public works by contract instead of the gangs; to levy a tax on convict
labor; to retain men seven years in chains. Boards, or commissions,
which gave him the aspect of a mediator or judge, advised him to
postpone and quash the disagreeable order or restriction. Thus during
his government his influence was paramount, and inferior functionaries
were satellites who obeyed his impulse, or were driven from their
spheres.

The chief justice alone could pretend to independence: by his seat in
both councils he possessed a voice in the enactment and administration
of the laws--a subject of continual suspicion and complaint, and really
dangerous whenever the government was a party. The chief justice
ultimately resigned his seat in the executive council (1835). The
secretary of state had declared in parliament that legislative and
executive offices were incompatible with the proper functions of a
judge.

The great works of Arthur were attributed by his opponents to sinister
motives: those most frequently mentioned were the new wharf at Hobart
Town, the road to Richmond, and the Bridgewater causeway. Arthur
benefited by his fore-knowledge. The imputations of personal injustice
or corruption were unfounded: what he gained, others did not lose,
except by the common risks of a sale. Thus the p