The Call to Govern a Distant Colony
In early 1824, James Stephen, a prominent British abolitionist and colonial administrator, delivered a weighty charge to Lieutenant-Colonel George Arthur, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen’s Land. Stephen envisioned the island—then a penal dependency of New South Wales—as a potential beacon of Christian virtue and enlightenment in the eastern hemisphere. Situated near China, India, and Muslim nations, Van Diemen’s Land, Stephen argued, could exert moral influence far beyond its shores. The challenge, however, was formidable: how to transform a penal outpost into a righteous society.
Arthur seemed uniquely suited for this mission. Born in Plymouth in 1784, he had served in the British Army, including postings in Honduras, where a spiritual awakening led him to embrace evangelical Christianity. Convinced of human depravity and divine grace, Arthur renounced worldly pleasures, dedicating himself to moral reform. His governorship would test whether a penal colony could become a virtuous state.
A Colony in Moral Crisis
When Arthur arrived in Hobart Town on May 11, 1824, he found a society rife with vice. Convicts, settlers, and officials alike indulged in drunkenness, violence, and exploitation. The Indigenous population, decimated by settler aggression, faced near annihilation. Arthur’s predecessors had done little to curb these abuses, and the colony’s reputation as a lawless frontier troubled British reformers.
Arthur’s first proclamation condemned attacks on Aboriginal people, urging settlers to treat them with “kindness and compassion.” Yet his idealism clashed with frontier realities. Clashes between settlers and Indigenous groups escalated, and Arthur’s attempts at conciliation—such as welcoming Aboriginal visitors in Hobart—were undermined by deep-seated racial hostility.
The Struggle for Reform
Arthur’s governance was defined by his evangelical zeal. He sought to reform convicts through discipline and moral instruction, segregating the worst offenders at Macquarie Harbour, a brutal penal settlement. Yet his policies often alienated free settlers, who resented his interference in their use of convict labor and his restrictions on liquor licenses.
A pivotal conflict arose with the press. Andrew Bent, an ex-convict publisher of the Hobart Town Gazette, criticized Arthur’s authoritarian measures, branding him a “Gibeonite of Tyranny.” Arthur retaliated by revoking Bent’s license, sparking a broader debate over press freedom in a penal colony. Meanwhile, Robert Lathrop Murray, a disgruntled settler, waged a pamphlet war against Arthur, accusing him of corruption and hypocrisy.
The Black War and the Limits of Benevolence
By the late 1820s, violence between settlers and Aboriginal Tasmanians reached a crisis. Arthur, torn between humanitarian principles and settler demands, initially resisted calls for extermination. Instead, he appointed George Augustus Robinson as a conciliator, hoping to relocate Indigenous survivors to Flinders Island.
Yet in 1830, facing unrelenting raids, Arthur authorized the “Black Line”—a massive military operation to forcibly remove Aboriginal people from settled districts. The campaign failed militarily but underscored the tragic collision of colonial expansion and Indigenous survival.
Legacy of a Puritan Governor
Arthur’s tenure ended in 1836, leaving a contested legacy. To some, he was a moral crusader who sought to redeem a fallen society. To others, he was an inflexible autocrat whose policies exacerbated suffering. His vision of a Christian colony remained unfulfilled, yet his efforts—flawed but earnest—reflected broader tensions in British imperialism: the clash between reformist ideals and colonial realities.
Today, Van Diemen’s Land (renamed Tasmania in 1856) bears the scars of this era. Arthur’s governorship remains a case study in the challenges of penal reform, Indigenous policy, and the limits of moral governance in an age of expansion. His story is a reminder that even the most determined reformers must grapple with the complexities of human nature and power.