THE STIRRING OF POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS. 279 



court work was thoroughly distasteful. Thus dislike of the 

 military court and hesitation as to the wisdom of introducing 

 jury trial were balanced against one another, and the scale just 

 dipped in favour of the latter. The opinion of Bigge and Field 

 was that a little time should elapse to allow the exceedingly 

 bitter feelings, aroused against the emancipists by Macquarie's 

 policy, to subside before trial by jury could be safely established. 1 



Lord Bathurst received the petition in 1820 and already 

 much had been done on the lines suggested. Trade regulations 

 had been relaxed and permission had been given to establish 

 distilleries. Before making any further changes, the Secretary 

 of State proposed to wait until he received the report of Com- 

 missioner Bigge. 2 



A decision of the Court of King's Bench in 1817 came as 

 an unexpected and heavy blow to the emancipists. 3 The old 

 custom of the Colonial Courts had been that a convict could 

 not sue or be sued, but that the convict free by servitude or 

 pardon stood in the courts as a free man. Field modified this 

 by allowing a convict to sue or be sued in his court, on the 

 ground that a record or office copy of his conviction was 

 necessary as proof of his status, though if such record were pro- 

 duced the convict had no standing. The case of Bullock 

 v. Dodds, heard by the Court of King's Bench, decided that 

 the Governor's pardons had only the power of pardons under 

 the sign-manual and did not allow a convict attainted of felony 

 to give evidence, maintain personal actions, or acquire, retain 

 and transmit property. Up to that time the Act, 30 Geo. III., 

 cap. 14, which conferred on the Governor the power to pardon 

 had been interpreted as giving to his pardons the same force as 

 pardons issued under the Great Seal, so that the news of the 

 decision in Bullock v. Dodds which reached New South Wales, 

 in 1818 came as an unwelcome surprise. 



1 Bigge proposed that the emancipist should fulfil the condition of cultivating 

 a certain proportion of his land before he should be eligible as a juror, and also he 

 should have " the free and unencumbered possession of not less than fifty acres 

 of land granted or of a house of the value of 100 ". See Report, II. 



2 See D. 3, 24th March, 1820. C.O., MS. For new trade regulations see 

 Chapter V. and see also Chapter X. 



3 See Report of Bullock v. Dodds in Barnewell and Alderson, Reports of 

 Cases in the King's Bench, vol. ii., pp. 258-278. Judgment of Bayley, J., and 

 Abbott, C. J. 



