Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/164

their slayers were tried on the 18th Oct. 1799. The evidence was conclusive; the court was unanimously of opinion that the prisoners were guilty (not of murder, but) "of wantonly killing two natives;" and to the shame of Hunter it must be recorded that the prisoners were admitted to bail, and a special reference,^[1] as it was euphoniously called, was made to His Majesty's Ministers.

In Jan. 1802, Lord Hobart announced his decision to Governor King. He had "perused with great attention" Hunter's report, had considered the circumstances of the trial, the difference of opinion "amongst the members who composed the court, as well as the length of time that had elapsed," and "had ventured to recommend the prisoners as proper objects of His Majesty's mercy." The Governor was to pardon them, "annexing such conditions as you shall think most adequate to the due attainment of the ends of justice." Having thus condoned the slaughter of unoffending fellow-creatures, and made it almost impossible for a governor to do justice, or to hope for support in doing it, Lord Hobart proceeded in the ethical vein of diplomacy to

"lament that the wise, and humane instructions of my predecessor relative to the necessity of cultivating the goodwill of the natives, do not appear to have been observed in earlier periods of the establishment of the colony with an attention corresponding to the importance of the object. The evils resulting from this neglect seem to be now sensibly experienced, and the difficulty of restoring confidence with the natives, alarmed and exasperated by the unjustifiable injuries they have too often experienced, will require all the attention which your active vigilance and humanity can bestow upon a subject so important in itself, and so essential to the prosperity of the settlement."

He hoped that the Governor would be able to persuade the inhabitants to show "forbearance and plain honest dealing;" and, with sentiment which reminds one of Sheridan's popular comedy, wished that, while the criminals were now to be pardoned, it should be "clearly understood that on future occasions any instance of injustice or wanton cruelty towards the natives will be punished with the utmost severity of the law."

Thus did the Secretary of State condone a murder of a class difficult to detect, more difficult to prove; and now, it seemed, to be pardoned on proof. As the Secretary of State