iants was often very great--many
venturing to ask, who did not hope to obtain; and whose sole claim to
mercy, was the bad terms on which they lived with the law. The crowd
pressed on with their (700) petitions, which the Governor read in their
presence, and by one letter of the alphabet gave liberty to the
impatient captives, or sent them back to merit freedom, as freedom was
then merited. The _Court of Clemency_, thronged by suitors, would have
afforded a fine subject to the artist--a scene unique in the history of
man.

The dispensation of pardons was not regulated by any uniform principles.
The interest of superintendents was given, as the reward of task-work
performed for the crown; more successful, by services rendered to
themselves. Such was a common condition; but many are mentioned, who
obtained their pardons on easier terms than personal labor. The loan of
a horse and cart, driven by his assigned servants, procured the
liberation of the lender; others hired vehicles to convey his
Excellency's baggage during his progresses, and thus payed in money the
price of freedom. The bargain was public, and questions of national
policy never entered the minds of him who granted, or those procuring
the royal mercy. The grant of pardons, thus formed an important
department of Macquarie's government.

A decision of the Court of King's Bench, Bullock _v._ Dodds, where the
plaintiff was an emancipist, seemed to peril their freedom and property.
The defendant, when sued in England on a bill, pleaded the attaint of
the plaintiff, who had received the pardon of Macquarie. The validity of
these remissions, which affected great numbers, was thus brought to the
test. The Chief Justice, Abbott, declared that an attainted person was,
in law, as one _civiliter mortuus_: he might _acquire_, not because he
was entitled _to hold_ any possession, but because a _donor_ could not
make _his own act_ void, and reclaim his _own gift_. Thus, a person
giving or conveying property, could not _recall_ it, but the convict
attaint could not _hold_ it; and it passed to the hands of the crown, in
whom the property of the convict vested. This being the law, any
ticket-of-leave holder, or any person whatever standing on the pardon of
the Governor, was liable to be deprived by the crown, or obstructed at
any moment in attempting to recover by suit at law.

The practice of the Sydney Supreme Court had long virtually rejected
such distinctions. The mixed