only reason why your Excellency has not yet been armed with such an Act of Parliament is that his Majesty's Government are not sufficiently aware of the great amount of the duties, or of the rising importance of the Colony".
Macquarie somewhat reluctantly did as Field advised. Field wrote himself to Goulburn on the same subject in November, saying, "If the Act of Parliament alluded to be not already passed, I am sure that the Earl Bathurst will see the necessity of an early consideration of the subject, since our duties are now so high that the practice of smuggling is already begun, and it is not to be wished that such a community as this should know that the law is impotent to enforce the payment of those duties."[1]
Apparently it had come before them in another way also, for Goulburn now explained, 23rd March, 1819, that "of late several persons had refused to pay, and their representations brought the matter for the first time under the notice of Government". It had not previously been thought of because when he came into office the duties were already in existence. The case was referred to the Crown Law Officers and their opinion was that it was illegal. The opinion was given on the 9th March, and the Government intended to bring in a Bill on the subject.[2]
However, the Government were willing to wait until the Commissioner had been to New South Wales before making any further changes. After a speech from Bennet[3] in which he made the totally inaccurate statement that the "single difference" between the power of punishing criminal offences in New South Wales and in England was that in the former "trial by jury was not necessary if the alleged crime were committed by a convict," the discussion on the petition came to an end. It had, however, the result of hastening the investigations by the Committee on Gaols, and a few days later Bennet informed the House that the Committee had decided to enter immediately upon the subject.[4]
They began forthwith to take evidence, and on 7th April
- ↑ Field to Goulburn, 13th November, 1818. He drew attention to another matter which was also taken up by Bigge later, namely, the fact that the Act 27 Geo. III., c. 2, related only to the Criminal Court, that the Civil Charter of Justice was not based on any Act of Parliament.
- ↑ Hansard, vol. xxxix., 23rd March, 1819, p. 1136.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 1137.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 1168, 26th March, 1819.
