date

19 Jan y 1803 + (11 Our consideration
19 Jan y 1803 + (11

Our consideration however

all this which presents itself unnoticed

from which the plea for violation of law on the ground of

necessity and expediency, can not but

suffer from abatement of its force. Already the March 1797

Expirees in a state of freedom are stated as amounting to

not less than 600. If

at that time so large a number could

be existing in that sort of state which is there called freedom, and the settlement remain

undestroyed, what becomes of the plea of necessity or even expediency, when applied to

to the keeping of them in a state of illegal bondage, by dozens or

half dozens at a time? a violation of law and justice, for

the sake of no greater a mass of advantage than was to be reaped

to no greater profit, than that was to be had by

the keeping them in this state by

dozens or half dozens at a time?

In all these transactions, in all this time, is it in the nature of the

case that the system, such as it is should have been carried on

otherwise than in consequence of and in general in conformity to,

Official Instructions received from him?
Similar Items
  • Title: [[094-315v] 16 Jan y 1803 Expiries]
    Description: [094-315v]

    16 Jan y 1803

    Expiries

    laws not a thought was ever entertained of employing this [...?] as a ground for ever delivering or excluding a single Convict beyond his legal transportation. In the case of this new Colony, under this new transportation system of the lea of expediency has any application, beyond what it had under the prior system, it can not be on any other ground than that of the incompetency of this modern /new-[...?]/ system in comparison of the old one. Under the old one /system/, they are reformed: therefore it was no such sufficient reason had of preventing them from coming back. Under the new system they are worse corrupted than before: thence comes the sufficiency of the reason supposing it [...?] for preventing them from coming back from New South Wales.

    /The new system must firs be supposed to be a bad one[?] an inexpedient[?] one in their point of view bad at least in comparison of the old one, for the purpose of proving the expediency of the stretch[?] of power[?] //act of coercion// in question an act of coercion which under the old system were without example./

    As to bondage, the keeping them in that state, it being determined that they should be detained there, rested on other grounds and on the ground of expediency, more or less sufficient at any rate more plausible. Some sort of co-ersion - beyond what they would have been /[...?] in general are/ subjected to in England after the [...?] of their terms /Why not subject such persons in England to whatever coercion was deemed[?] employ there?/, could scarcely be deemed to be necessary - necessary to the [...?] and perhaps the very existence of the Colony. From that up to absolute bondage, may exist different degrees of coercion, differing in [...?] instances by shades of difference not easily definable: but admitting that in the instance of any such degree that it was beyond what was necessary [...?] reference to those objects those ends even[?] the plea of trial necessity[?], and the plea even of expediency along with it.

    These considerations however it ought [...?] to [...?...?] are rather of a moral nature, and as such not truly[?] [...?] to the object of the personal essay: in a purely legal point of view, all such distinctions are [...?...?] purpose. In each case, the advantage the [...?] the conclusion in point of expediency is - that the Colony so circumstanced ought not either to have been established as [...?]: /authorities at home[?]/ not that the conduct[?] thus rendered necessary by them ought no to have been maintained by the authorities in the Colony. The satisfaction[?] - the excuse - whether it may immoral be applies totally to persons there: not in any degree to presume here. Whether[?] here[?] no[?] [...?] ought a man to be [...?...?] advantage of the [...?].
  • Title: [28 Sept 1803 A Evidence]
    Description: 28 Sept 1803

    A

    Evidence

    Circumstantial

    Ch. Explanative

    In the consideration of circumstantial evidence, a primary /first/ line of distinction will be between circumstantial evidence of general application, and circumstantial evidence of particular application: between that sort /those sorts/ of circumstantial evidence which apply to all cases in general - at least to penal cases in general, or to all non-penal cases in general - and those, the application of which is confined to particular cases - to the cases of particular offences, or particular claims of right.

    In the making out the /a/ list of modifications of circumstantial evidence of general application, the object /our guide/ must be - not the abstract nature of things, a guide which would bewilder us without use in an endless labyrinth - but usage, as created by necessity or expediency, and evidenced by language -
  • Title: [18 Jan y 1803 + (6 N o 7. p.268.]
    Description: 18 Jan y 1803 + (6

    N o 7. p.268. 19 th

    February 1792. Intention executed. On this day

    sailed for Canton, the Bellona. Into this ship had been received six

    persons from the Settlement: two of them, Expirees, by permission; two others, Expirees

    also, but without permission: the remaining two,

    Non-Expirees. The four latter

    it is stated that they had been "secreted": also

    that they were "discovered"; "the ship "being ."

    Thus they were accordingly re-landed at least, if not otherwise punished,

    may be pretty safely

    concluded, though not expressly mentioned.

    Of the two Non-expirees

    it is stated, that "they had "not yet served the full period of their sentences. From this it

    seems not unreasonable to conclude that they would have their

    full period would have arrived, before their arrival in Great Britain. If

    so

    neither then by their arrival, as with

    is

    any more than by their departure would have been

    thing

    they gone beyond the exercise of their (restored rights.

    N o 9. p.268 15 February . 1793. At

    this time the expectation "about the clause." . . in the Charter

    "party, for preventing Shipmasters from receiving any "person. . .

    from the Colony without the express consent "and order of the Governor,"

    was found to be realized. The Bellona came provided with this Clause. She

    had sailed from England on the 8 th of August

    1792.

    N o 9 p. 283. 24 th April 1793. Intention executed a second

    time.

    Sailed the Shah Hormurias and Chesterfield. But few

    Convicts [Expirees] were " allowed to quit the

    Colony in these ships. [the] The ships were two. On

    a subsequent occasion in November 1794, the number received on

    board

    the same number of ships (the Endeavour and the

    Fancy) had been near a hundred: whereof by

    permission, 50; without permission near 50 more. ib., p. 398.