sions of the Commons, the discontent of the emancipists was
condemned by the tories, and vindicated by the whigs. Peel charged
Macquarie with culpable neglect, in omitting to forward the lists; but
he observed, no general pardon had been issued for fifty years: what it
meant, was unknown! The Act required the Governor to send home the
names, and the Secretary to insert them in a general pardon; but he
could not tell in what manner to perform this duty. This was, he said,
of no practical moment: an individual might sue out a pardon, under the
great seal, without cost. He strongly opposed vesting by law in the
Governor, a power to grant absolute pardons--an interference with the
prerogative royal, and dangerous to public justice. To sustain this
opinion, he instanced the case of a man who had been transported for
forging a title to an estate, and who, under such a pardon, had returned
to Scotland to pursue his claim.

The zeal of Eagar in the cause of the emancipists, provoked the
animadversion of ministers: they hinted that he was liable to be treated
as a felon at large, and was indebted to the lenity of the executive for
his safety; but Sir James Mackintosh, who gave respectability to the
cause he espoused, vindicated the claims of the emancipist with great
warmth, and excused the earnestness with which the confirmation of his
title to liberty had been sought. That great and good man displayed, in
every debate, the generosity of his temper: always the enemy of
despotism, every form of oppression called him into action, and the
emancipists were largely indebted to his eloquence. After long delay,
this agitating question was settled, but with a reservation of serious
moment. The new law[131] confirmed all the pardons granted in New South
Wales, with the rights they included; rendering them of full effect when
they should be ratified by the crown. It further provided that no future
pardon should be held valid until allowed by the Secretary of State, and
then only within the colony of New South Wales and its dependencies--a
serious drawback from the attractions of the boon, as understood before;
but which was no barrier to the further extension of the royal clemency.

The opponents of Macquarie argued, that the profusion of mercy had not
been followed by reformation: the emancipists, they alleged, were
unchanged in principle, and never abandoned their habits of crime. This
view was sustained by Mr. Wentworth's representati