Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/559

transmitted by Marsden to England." Marsden reiterated that he had no statement to produce, "because be had made none, in the shape of a charge." He had no doubt that in a letter to a friend he had alluded to the case of Bayne. The public flogger had informed Marsden that he was compelled by Douglass to flog Bayne "in the moat cruel manner on suspicion of a robbery," that he was to give him twenty-five lashes every morning until he would tell where the stolen property was concealed: that he did so for five consecutive days, but was so disgusted that on the sixth day he kept out of the way; that on the eighth day (Monday) Dr. Douglass ordered the flogging to be repeated, while Bayne vainly protested that he knew nothing of the property, "I beg leave to be allowed (Marsden wrote, 28th July) to offer proof to this Honourable Court that the above circumstances did occur, and I leave this statement with the utmost deference and respect to your consideration." Even this statement the Court evaded.

"The mere fault of a man's having been punished six times in eight days might be in pursuance of a sentence of a Court, and therefore, unless you are prepared to prove that Bayne was punished on suspicion only, the Court does not think your statement of the 28th July 1825, so far at least as you are pledged to its accuracy, is within the point of inquiry directed by Earl Bathurst."

Marsden promptly replied: "I am ready to produce proof of the alleged fact of Dr. Douglass having directed a convict to he flogged with the view of extorting confession from him." Quoting thus the very words of Lord Bathurst's despatch, he might be pardoned for hoping that the quiver of the quiddits and quillets of Forbes was exhausted. It was not so. The sturdy chaplain was informed by the Court—"unless you transmit a copy of the statement you have transmitted to England of the alleged fact . . . they do not feel authorized by Lord Bathurst's instructions to enter on any other subject of investigation,"

The evasion was palpable, but Marsden could not thwart it. The Court made a fair inquiry dependent upon compliance with their own demand, which had been so framed as to make compliance impossible. He had made no statement; he had no copy of the private letter to England, in which he thought he had alluded to Bayne's