caused Macquarie to order a magisterial inquiry.[1] Already one inquiry had been held into the conduct of officers and crew at St. Helena by a British admiral stationed there. But the surgeon wrote to the Governor "from whatever circumstances that transpired at the investigation the effrontery of the aggressors was considerably increased, and every act of profligacy appeared to have received the sanction of law, ocular demonstration being considered indispensably necessary for conviction; and even then it was held that there was no power vested in the authority of New South Wales to punish the offenders."[2]
The Bench of Magistrates at Sydney absolved the master of the ship and the surgeon-superintendent of all blame, saying that they had done what they could to restrain the officers and crew.[3]
In his report to Lord Bathurst, Macquarie said: "Your Lordship will perhaps conceive … that I have been aware of these abuses having frequently existed heretofore, and of course that I should have reported them before the present time. In explanation, I have only to observe that the present time is the first occasion where the facts have been brought to view at all, whilst there is reason to apprehend that on similar occasions the officers were as generally guilty as the crews, and that a good understanding was thereby preserved between all parties, and of course no complaints were made."[4] "It is true," he continued,
- ↑ These inquiries were not infrequent and were held at the Governor's order to investigate complaints made by any of the officers or by the convicts at the Secretary's muster or afterwards. Thus in the case of the Janus in 1819, an inquiry was held in consequence of complaints made by Bayly, to whom two women who had been assigned from that ship as domestic servants confessed that they had lived with the captain and surgeon throughout the voyage. See Bigge, I., and Bayly to C.O. 1819, R.O., MS. The right of the magistrates to hold these inquiries was based on the instruction which allowed the Governor to make the surgeon swear to the truth of his report. See above. See also Wylde's Evidence, Appendix to Bigge's Reports, R.O., MS. and Bigge's Report, I.
- ↑ D. 1, 3rd March, 1818. Enclosure, R.O., MS.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ D. 1, 31st March, 1818. R.O., MS. When convicts and those who were set over them conspired together it was difficult to punish the guilty. Several times the men, e.g. were given short rations and then bribed or promised bribes so that they should not complain at the muster. On two occasions these promises were not fulfilled, and then the men complained. The magistrates held in such case the masters and surgeons were no more guilty than the prisoners who had been, as it were, accomplices, and therefore dismissed the complaints. This was, of course, an error, for the masters and surgeons had been guilty of dereliction of duty in disobeying the instructions of the Board whose servants they were, and in not carrying out the stipulations of the Charter-party.
