Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/556

employed him. There was an old regulation (of Governor King's, 1802) prohibiting the letting out the services of a convict. The object was to restrain the assignee from profiting by the hire of a servant for whom the government supplied food. Ring derived the profits of his own laboor. But Douglass saw a prospect of assailing Marsden. Ring was arrested for being illegally at large; Marsden pleaded that Ring by his permission worked occasionally not for Marsden's profit, but for his own, and was therefore not culpable. Douglass and Lawson without further inquiry fined Marsden half-a-crown a day for each day of Ring's illegal freedom, and sent Ring to gaol. A few days afterwards, without more evidence, a fine of £10 was inflicted on Marsden, and levied by distress (June 1823). Marsden showed that one of Dr. Douglass's assigned servants was employed by Marsden as a tailor, but Brisbane, when appealed to, replied only that he "found no reason for his interference with the due administration of the law." Marsden prosecuted Douglass and Lawson in the Supreme Court, and recovered the amount of the fine, with costs. The convict Ring, once noted for neat attire, but now in irons and shabby, despaired of his case, escaped to New Zealand, and was heard of no more. Marsden wrote to Mr. (afterwards the great Sir Robert) Peel, Home Secretary: "I feel exceedingly for Ring; should he return to England and fall a sacrifice to the law,^[1] I should never forgive myself unless I used every means in my power to save him."

Peel referred the matter to Lord Bathurst. Inquiry was ordered. The Governor, with the Chief Justice and Archdeacon Scott as assessors, composed the Court. Marsden and Douglass cross-examined the witnesses. One man, an Irish Roman Catholic, told Douglass that the whole town murmured at bail being refused for Ring when offered by Marsden; and that though he had no money he told Marsden at the time he would subscribe a bullock or two to prosecute Douglass for his conduct.

Marsden denied that he came within the scope of the order even if it had not been obsolete, because he supported Ring, whereas the Order of 1802 was intended to prevent