Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/307

 court work was thoroughly distasteful. Thus dislike of the military court and hesitation as to the wisdom of introducing jury trial were balanced against one another, and the scale just dipped in favour of the latter. The opinion of Bigge and Field was that a little time should elapse to allow the exceedingly bitter feelings, aroused against the emancipists by Macquarie's policy, to subside before trial by jury could be safely established.

Lord Bathurst received the petition in 1820 and already much had been done on the lines suggested. Trade regulations had been relaxed and permission had been given to establish distilleries. Before making any further changes, the Secretary of State proposed to wait until he received the report of Commissioner Bigge.

A decision of the Court of King's Bench in 1817 came as an unexpected and heavy blow to the emancipists. The old custom of the Colonial Courts had been that a convict could not sue or be sued, but that the convict free by servitude or pardon stood in the courts as a free man. Field modified this by allowing a convict to sue or be sued in his court, on the ground that a record or office copy of his conviction was necessary as proof of his status, though if such record were produced the convict had no standing. The case of Bullock v. Dodds, heard by the Court of King's Bench, decided that the Governor's pardons had only the power of pardons under the sign-manual and did not allow a convict attainted of felony to give evidence, maintain personal actions, or acquire, retain and transmit property. Up to that time the Act, 30 Geo. III., cap. 14, which conferred on the Governor the power to pardon had been interpreted as giving to his pardons the same force as pardons issued under the Great Seal, so that the news of the decision in Bullock v. Dodds which reached New South Wales, in 1818 came as an unwelcome surprise.