for a formal
vindication, but he declined expressing an opinion, although earnestly
pressed; and excused himself by alleging that, independently of this
charge, there was ample justification of the recall. It would have been
no great stretch of generosity had a minister admitted that rumors set
up as a bar to employment were no longer barriers to the confidence of
the crown. Mr. Chester, a brother of Lady Wilmot, transmitted an
address[247] presented to Sir Eardley to the Bishop of Tasmania, for his
remarks. He replied he could not tell to what reports it alluded, and
could not contradict them; but that rumors of the kind had fallen under
his observation which he had proved to be groundless: charges had been
whispered, but none had been substantiated (May, '47).

The reports in disparagement of Wilmot originated in the freedom of his
address--perfectly innocent in itself, but liable to misconstruction.
The credit they received depended entirely on the party sympathies of
the listener, and they grew as they went. No one, however, attached much
importance to them on the spot. Mr. Gladstone was condemned for
entertaining them. He seems more worthy of censure for his indefinite
method of stating their nature and the authority on which they rested.
The moral character of a governor is of moment to a colony, and a just
consideration in his appointment; but when assailed it should certainly
have all the protection of a full and open enquiry.

No governor ever was more unfortunate in his political position. He
could only tax and restrain. There was nothing in his gift. To the
substantial difficulties of the people around him he was unable to offer
more than those general assurances which often exasperate rather than
console. The state of religious parties increased his disquiet. He had
to adjust the claims of churches to spiritual authority. In declining to
erect ecclesiastical courts Wilmot not only gratified many, but he
followed the direction of his legal advisers.

Sir Eardley Wilmot, like most governors, considered himself the servant
of the crown, restrained in his discretion by absolute and specific
instructions. Had Lord Stanley acted with prudence he would have left
much to Wilmot's judgment; but just before he had dilated with vast
perspicacity on the tendency of governors to act in behalf of the
colonists, to forget imperial interests, to misapply the funds and
pervert the labor belonging to the crown. The precisio