roperty of the Rev.
Robert Knopwood, whom he was said to defraud, was several times in the
market: it was offered by advertisement many years before: its future
appropriation to commerce was predicted, and was described to enhance
its price. It was offered by Mr. Knopwood to Mrs. Hodgson for L800: it
was purchased by Mr. H. Jennings, a nephew of Mr. Gellibrand, senior,
without reference to Arthur; and was finally sold to his agent at a
small advance. The new wharf rendered the purchase highly advantageous;
but there was neither deceit nor oppression.

The great work he began at Bridgewater, where a magnificent causeway
forms the abutment of a bridge which connects both banks of the Derwent,
was a task of many years: many thousand pounds in value lie buried.
Arthur had estates in its vicinity. The other charges of corruption are
of a similar nature, even less substantial than these.

But although many of his works will perpetuate his memory while the
country lasts, they could only be justified by their connexion with
penal arrangements. The discipline prescribed did not admit of rapid
movement or wide distribution. Huts were necessary for the convicts,
houses for their officers, and various stores; and it was only on
extensive excavations that labor could be inspected with success. The
waste of expenditure was rather apparent than real. The objects
contemplated were not colonial; and thus, if the local obligation is
lessened, the ground of complaint is diminished.

During his government, Arthur became wealthy: his estates were numerous,
and their sale realised a large amount. That he acquired them improperly
is not even capable of suspicion; that he applied clandestinely the
means afforded by his office to improve them, is equally destitute of
evidence. Nor is it easy to see how a community can be injured by the
outlay of capital acquired in its service, or the interest of its
officers in the soil. The moral weight of government was compromised far
more by the air of mystery which veiled, than the corruptions which
debased it. The outcries raised against the disposal of land in special
instances, were often misdirected: many deviations from strict
impartiality were prescribed by the secretary of state, whose discretion
was unlimited by regulations. Arthur was silent, and his character
suffered: he despised reproach, which notwithstanding impaired his
influence for good. Just before his recall, Mr. William Bryan made
s