34
their arrival, tempted by the superabundance of good land, did with impunity desert their masters, leaving their property to perish, and did themselves become landowners, it will be apparent, either that there were then no laws in the colony, or that they were not in force. The reverse, however, is the fact,—there were laws, and they were enforced.
The following is No. 8 of the land regulations:—“No grant of land will be made to servants under indenture; nor shall persons receive grants who shall appear to have come to the settlement at the expense of other individuals, without sufficient assurance of their having fulfilled the condition of any agreement under which they may have come.” The author does not remember an instance of this regulation being relaxed; and it is manifest that destruction of property and the ruin of the capitalist must have been inevitable, had the Government not enforced it.
Equally without foundation is the statement—that the indentured servant could desert his master with impunity. The indenture was binding equally on master and servant, and was strictly enforced by the colonial law. If the master failed to give the wages, food, or whatever else might have been stipulated for in the indenture, the servant, on establishing his complaint before a magistrate, obtained his discharge. On the other hand, if the master proved a breach of the indenture by the servant unduly absenting himself, refusing to work, &c., the magistrate was under obligation to imprison the servant. Also any person employing an indentured servant, without permission of the master, was subject to a very heavy fine.
Mr. Peel and his people were in this manner circumstanced. The author has read many of their indentures: in all of these Mr. Peel was bound to pay them daily wages (generally three shillings), out of which their food and clothing were to be deducted. The capital imported by Mr. Peel,
