Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/219

This page has been validated.

MAYOR OF LONDON OBTAINS REDRESS FOR SHIPMASTER

ceded with the Governor, and the warrant was withdrawn.^[1] A golden opportunity of relieving the government from the shame previously cast upon it was thus lost, by failure to make an example at a fitting time. Meaner men may make mistakes with impunity. A Governor can never regain the position he loses by a want of principle, or of resolution to enforce what he knows to be right.

One Captain John Nichol, of the ship Walker, insisted upon and obtained justice. In 1799 he conveyed Colonel Paterson and Captain Abbott from England to New South Wales, supplying them and others with two-thirds of a full seaman's allowance of provisions on the voyage, in accordance with his charter-party. At Sydney the other third was demanded, and, to use Nichol's own language, as obstinately refused." Nichol was summoned, and compelled to supply the arrear provisions for eight persons. His charter-party was scouted as "only a copy, and that not attested. He obtained no redress from Governor Hunter. He deposed to these facts (28th Jan. 1803) before the Lord Mayor Price, at the Mansion House. Inquiry was made. The Transport Office wrote to Lord Hobart. Lord Hobart (12th March 1803) wrote to Governor King—

"Colonel Paterson ought to have known that it was contrary to the established rules of the service," . . . "and the Civil Court ought also to have known that the point in question should, instead of being brought under their cognizance, have been referred to His Majesty's Government for decision. You will therefore take immediate steps to recover from Colonel Paterson and the other persons, . . . and you will signify to Colonel Paterson my entire disapprobation of his having given the sanction of his name to such a proceeding."

Paterson obeyed, but remarked that he was guided by the decision obtained by Governor Hunter.

↑ "Hunter recommended (1796) the removal of the corps which contained "characters who have been considered as disgraceful to every other regiment in His Majesty's service." He complained also to the commanding officer, Paterson, that the "conduct of this part of the corps has been, in my opinion, the most violent and outrageous that was ever heard of by any British regiment whatever." Some of them (he told the Secretary of State) were often superior in every species of infamy to the most export in wickedness among the convicts." The Duke of Portland told Hunter that the conduct of the military in attacking the carpenter was so flagrant that he could "not well imagine anything like a justifiable excuse for not bringing the four soldiers who were deposed against to a court-martial, and punishing them with the utmost severity."

[1] "Hunter recommended (1796) the removal of the corps which contained "characters who have been considered as disgraceful to every other regiment in His Majesty's service." He complained also to the commanding officer, Paterson, that the "conduct of this part of the corps has been, in my opinion, the most violent and outrageous that was ever heard of by any British regiment whatever." Some of them (he told the Secretary of State) were often superior in every species of infamy to the most export in wickedness among the convicts." The Duke of Portland told Hunter that the conduct of the military in attacking the carpenter was so flagrant that he could "not well imagine anything like a justifiable excuse for not bringing the four soldiers who were deposed against to a court-martial, and punishing them with the utmost severity."

[1]