Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/464

This page has been validated.
436
LIEUT. KENT HONOURABLY ACQUITTED.

investigation lasted three days. Bligh called only one witness out of many summoned by him. He delivered a paper,

"taking it for granted that the Court will not think it right to inquire into the propriety or impropriety of the dispossessing me of the civil government of the territory of New South Wales . . . and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty directed me in framing the charges upon the present occasion to confine myself to those points which were in breach of the naval articles of war."

He hoped that if Kent should call witnesses the Court would allow him to call others to rebut. The judgment was that the Court

"having heard . . . is of opinion that the said Lieut. Kent did sail . . . in the two instances above-mentioned without the order (of Bligh); that he did not so sail under the persons asserted to have illegally and by force dispossessed the said William Bligh of the government of New South Wales, and did not improperly strike the broad pendant of the said William Bligh . . . That Kent, under the extreme and extra-ordinary difficulties he was placed under, showed every disposition to obey any orders which (Bligh) might have thought fit to have given to him: that he was actuated by a sincere wish to perform his duty for the good of His Majesty's service, and that he was justified in the conduct he pursued . . . and that the third charge has not been proved against the said Lieut. Kent, and the Court) doth on the whole adjudge him to be honourably acquitted of the whole of the above charges."[1]

The officers of the Court exonerated Kent from blame. His sword was returned as to one deserving distinction rather than disgrace.

Johnston had reported his arrival in England in 1809. Bligh arrived in Oct. 1810.[2] Johnston appealed (16th Nov.) to Lord Liverpool. He hoped he might not be considered impatient in earnestly soliciting to know whether he was to consider himself "so unfortunate as to remain under the displeasure of Government as he had the inexpressible mortification to see in Governor Macquarie's proclamation, or whether the evidence transmitted to Lord Castlereagh, and the subsequent approval" of the conduct of Johnston, Foveaux, and Paterson, had convinced Lord Liverpool that

  1. ↑ The Naval Chronicle 1811. Vol. xxv. London.
  2. ↑ Bligh desired to prosecute the officers of the Criminal Court. In Nov. 1810 he urged the Judge-Advocate to institute proceedings against,—1st. Kemp, Brabyn, Moore, Laycock, Minchin, and Lawson. 2ndly, Johnston, Dr. Harris, Draffin, Archibald Bell, and Sergeant Whittle. 3rdly, John Blaxland, Edward Macarthur, and Hannibal Macarthur, settlers; T. Jamison, surgeon; and Grimes, Surveyor-General. 4thly. Lt. Col. Foveaux, "who continued my confinement."
This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.