£100, and the Governor offered a like sum, for conviction
of the writer.
On the 9th May, 1803, King told Lord Hobart that he was "perfectly satisfied with the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly testimonies of gratitude received from every description of colonists." With regard to the officers of the New South Wales Corps who were opposed to him, he did not choose "to seek that personal reparation from those who have used every means to provoke it, and which nothing but the high sense I have of the important trust committed to me has prevented." He humbly solicited that a civil, military, and naval commission might inquire into the whole of his conduct. His public and private acts he was ready to submit. "But in case any consideration should render this request inadmissible, I humbly implore your Lordship's procuring me His Majesty's leave of absence to enable me to submit my conduct to your Lordship's consideration."
Had such a request reached Mr. Dundas, he would either have supported the Governor boldly, or granted his request, or superseded him. Lord Hobart took no such intelligible course. Even ridiculous decisions of the courts-martial were left undisturbed by the Judge-Advocate-General, Sir Charles Morgan, though their absurdity was thus pointed out by himself: "In this case (Ensign Bayley accused of striking a convict), by some unaccountable error, the court-martial, after declaring, perhaps properly, that the charge was not within their cognizance, immediately, and, if I may so express it, in the same breath, therefore most honourably acquit him."
Nevertheless, the acquittals were conclusive. His Majesty must not, however, be supposed to concur with the courts-martial, nor even with the Governor; "but, for the sake of harmony, His Majesty chooses rather to pass over any seeming irregularity in the proceedings, and to recommend to all parties concerned that they will consign to oblivion, if it be possible, all that has passed, and His Majesty trusts that you will yourself herein set a laudable example."
Sir C. Morgan had been asked to decide whether an emancipated convict was by a pardon so far purged and
