and the destruction of flocks required some check; but the frame-work
of the bill was objectionable, and the charge excessive. It will be seen
hereafter that the tax occasioned the most serious disputes.

The administration of Sir E. Wilmot was, however, suddenly brought to a
close. Reports, forwarded by Mr. Forster, and adopted by the governor,
extolled the outlines of Lord Stanley's system, while events were
constantly occurring which, amply sustained by respectable testimony,
demonstrated its sad consequences. Evils of a serious nature were
extensively prevalent,--some, inseparable from every scheme of penal
discipline, others aggravated by the excessive dimensions of the
probation system, and not a few the result of the failure of demand for
labor. The worst effects of sensuality were the most alarming feature of
the system, but even they were probably only more flagrant because the
extent of transportation gave them a wider range. Remedial measures
demanded an outlay and inspection which the instructions of the home
government had prohibited in language the most distinct. The ministers,
having tied up the governor's hands, complained that he had carried
economy to a pernicious extent, and in reporting the state of the
prisoners, had passed over important questions. But those who examine
the despatches of Wilmot with care will be compelled to question the
accuracy of these complaints. There is scarcely an evil which the
progress of the scheme unfolded that he did not admit and illustrate.
These evils he thought partly accidental and partly inevitable in all
penal schemes; but still he maintained that, with all its defects, the
probation system, as such, was the best ever devised by the British
ministry. Lord Stanley indeed stated that in "five reports from Captain
Forster and seventeen despatches from Wilmot, he had either received no
intelligence or that their remarks were casual, slight, and few." Thus
at the end of three years he found himself destitute of any clear
understanding in reference to the conclusions which Mr. Forster, as the
immediate agent, or the governor, as the chief superintendent, must have
formed respecting the soundness of the principles or the wisdom of the
plans which both had been called upon to administer (September, '45). It
was thus apparent that the colonial-office held the governor responsible
not only for obedience to positive instructions, but for their results;
and that, in the even