Meanwhile in London James Macarthur, whilst he was not opposed to an emancipist juror as such, was against the indis
criminate admission of emancipists to juries. In his judgment the allowance of ’civil rights, and the exercise of political duties' ought to be limited by certain conditions which he out lined, and which read like a system of partial, rather than
plenary, indulgences. He, mirroring the mind of the exclusives, saw the extension of jury service to emancipists as the thin edge of the wedge, which would result in their eventual introduction into the field of representative government. This was a thought that filled the minds of the exclusives ’by the most gloomy fore-
4
bodings’. These opinions were given weight by Burton who,
1. I b i d . , 3» 24 August 1835* See also Bourke to Glenelg, 28 February
1836
, and enclosures, H R A , 1, XVIII, 306-30.2. SH, 25 July 1836. At this time the Legislative Council was still closed to the public so that its proceedings were known only through information passed to the press.
3. I b i d . , 3» 27 October
1836
and 23 February 1837»4. Macarthur to Grey,
9
February 1837. Petitions to the King 1835“37, PP • 95-1 15, ML. Macarthur thought that almost all. the crime committed in the Colony was perpetrated by convicts or emancipists. I b i d ., p.9 8
.although unwilling to come out d i r e c t l y agai nst emancipists p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n jury d u t i e s , nonetheless threw 'doubt on the i n t e g r i t y of J u r i e s i n c e r t a i n cases t r i e d before him*. In the L e g i s l a t i v e Council i t was l e f t to Dowling and Plunkett to f i g h t f o r the r e t e n t i o n of the extended system when the Act was renewed i n 1 8 3 6 , apparently with such e f f e c t t h a t the obj e ct or s abated t h e i r opposition. Bourke moreover could point out t h a t whilst only 400 people signed the p e t i t i o n r eques ti ng, amongst other t h i ng s , the r e s t r i c t i o n of jury r i g h t s , 6,000 c o l o n i s t s ,
2
' capable of forming sound opinions’ des ired the opposite.
I f the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y granted to some emancipists to act as j u r o r s was regarded as obnoxious, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y granted to Plunkett to act in place of a Grand Jury in the Colony was equally r e p e l l e n t to those who had misgivings about the ov e r a l l a dmi nis trat ion of the law in New South Wales. The powers of the Attorney-General were summed up by h i s c r i t i c s under six headings:
1 . 2.
3
.4
. 5 - 6 .P u t t i n g any man i n the dock without counsel„ Trying the man on his own indictment.
Knowing the panel of jurymen for each day.
Consequently t r y i n g the man by what jury he pleased. Addressing the jury f o r the prosecution.
Addressing the jury in r e p l y / to the defence of the p r i s o n e r . J
The c r i t i c i s m of his act i n g as a Grand Jury arose p r i n c i p a l l y over a case i n which he charged two men, Henry Donnison and Willoughby Bean, of Brisbane Water, of c a t t l e stealing» Both men were magis t r a t e s and the charge of s t e a l i n g c a t t l e was a grave one.
Plunkett said i n Court t h a t he hoped t ha t Grand J u r i e s would soon be introduced i n t o the Colony, but there was a widespread sense
1. Bourke to Glenelg, 10 June 1 8 3 6 , HRA, 1, XVIII, 4 3 6 - 8 . Bourke cal led Burton's opinions 'vague a s p e r s i o n s ’ .
2. I b i d . , p. 438, and Bourke to Glenelg, 25 Jul y 1 8 3 6 , I b i d ., pp.4j56-7 and Bourke to Glenelg, 13 April 1 8 3 6 , with enclosed p e t i t i o n s , I b i d . , pp. 391-^03.