Page:The Eureka Stockade.djvu/107

97 the public weal; public taxes are public property. Some of these "gentlemanly" officials made use of language on the occasion alluded to, that not only gave evidence of considerable malignity, but of a vulgarity that a gentleman would scorn to use; and we think it not an unfair inference to draw from the foregoing facts, that the digger-hunt of the 30th of November, and the cruel slaughter of the 3rd December, were unmistakable acts of petty official revenge; and, therefore, instead of the diggers forestalling the Commission of Inquiry, appointed by His Excellency, we advisedly say it was Commissioner Rede and Co. who forestalled the inquiry by endeavouring to crush the "500 scoundrels" he complained of——a scoundrel in that gentleman's estimation seems to be one who thinks that some £12 per head per annum is rather too heavy a tax for an Englishman to pay; especially if used in supporting men so unfit for office as he has proved himself to be. This gentleman was the arch-rioter of the 30th of November; in this we are confirmed (if confirmation of well-known facts were needed) by the verdict of acquittal of the so called "Ballaarat Rioters," partially on the evidence of Mr. Rede himself.

In the latter part of His Excellency's reply, he very properly lays it down as "the duty of government to administer equal justice to all;" which is no doubt the noblest principle of the English constitution, and we certainly have no fears for the peace of even colonial society, with all its supposed discordant elements, so long as that principle is practically carried out; but we are under well founded apprehension if the reverse is to be the order of the day.

There is a paragraph in our petition to the effect, that if "His Excellency had found sufficient extenuation in the conduct of American citizens," we thought there were equally good grounds for the extending similar clemency to all, irrespective of nationality; and that it was unbecoming the dignity of any government to make such exceptions; and if such have been done (and that something tantamount to it has been done, there is ample proof), it is a violation of the very principle enunciated by His Excellency in his report viz., "That it is the duty of government to administer equal justice to all." What we contend for is this:——If it be just to grant an amnesty to a citizen of one country, "equal justice" claims an amnesty for all. We wish it to be distinctly understood by our American friends, that we do not for a moment find fault with His Excellency for allowing their countrymen to go free, but we do complain, in sorrow, that he does not display the same liberality to others——that he does not wisely and magnanimously comply with the prayer of our petition by granting a general amnesty.

But it is stated further in the reply, that "no exception had been made in favour of any person against whom a charge was preferred." With all becoming deference to His Excellency, we think this does not meet the point. If the gentleman were innocent, why guarantee him against arrest? And if his friends (and we give them credit for good tact) anticipated the "preferment of a charge," it does not create any special grounds for an anesty in contradistinction to a general amnesty.

Again, upon whom lies the 'onus' of "preferring a charge?" £500 was offered for 'Vern', " and £400 for Lalor or Black; and yet we presume there was no charge, or charges, "preferred" against them any more than the gentleman alluded to. We yet trust that the same good feeling that induced His Excellency to give James M'Gill his liberty will increase sufficiently strong to unbar the prison-doors, and set the state captives free, that they may be restored to their homes, their sorrowing families, and sympathising countrymen. By such an act, the Lieutenant-Governor will secure the peace of society, and the respect and support of the people, and be carrying out the glorious principle he has proclaimed of "Equal Justice to All."

Melbourne, 23rd January, 1855.