and others
without any sort of information of their crime or sentence; and the
authorities felt justified in gaining by artifice, from the unsuspecting
prisoners themselves, what the ministers had neglected to furnish.

An Irishman, who could give no information, was suited to a sentence by
a process of analogy: he was set down, in compliment to his comrade, for
"life."[128] The regular transmission of this kind of information was
neglected, chiefly, by the Irish executive; ever slow to perceive the
obligation of reason and justice. The longevity of abuses is among the
most instructive lessons of history. The first fleet left their lists
with the owners of the transports: soon after their arrival, several
prisoners declared their sentence was completed; this, the government
was unable to affirm or deny, and therefore did nothing; but one of the
claimants, having expressed his discontent in a manner disrespectful to
the Lieutenant-Governor, received 600 lashes, and six months in
irons![129] Such atrocious neglect of the first principles of equity, is
a sad set-off against the license of indiscriminate pardons. The Roman
judge was a far better casuist: "For it seemeth to me unreasonable, to
send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against
him."[130]

A quarrel between Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Eagar, an emancipist
attorney, displayed more forcibly the effect of the decision of the
English Chief Justice. Judge Field presided at a session of magistrates
at Parramatta, when Eagar attempted to act as counsel: this was
prevented by the court; and the judge, as chairman, expressed himself,
in reference to Eagar, in terms of severe disapprobation and contempt,
stigmatising him as a common _barrator_, or mover of quarrels, whom the
Governor might justly prosecute for sedition, or banish from the colony.
Eagar, not daunted by the philippic of the judge, resolved to sue him in
a secondary court for slander, and to recover back fees paid in the
Supreme Court, and which he alleged the judge had levied illegally; but
Judge Field ordered his solicitor to file an affidavit of his belief
that Eagar was under attainder, and prayed for time to obtain an office
copy of his conviction: this course was allowed, and the action
defeated.

Not long after, Eagar attempted to recover certain penalties imposed by
the Act of Charles II. on foreign merchants trading in the British
plantations: the penalties were enormous, and the