[1998]AUIndigLawRpr27

Kercher,Bruce"RvBallard,RvMurrellandRvBonjon"[1998]
AUIndigLawRpr27;(1998)3(3)AustralianIndigenousLawReporter410
RvBallard
RvMurrell
RvBonjon
RvBallard,RvMurrellandRvBonjon
BruceKercherThethreecasesreportedhere,RvBallard,RvMurrellandRvBonjon,all
concernwhetherIndigenouspeopleweresubjecttoEnglishlawinrelationtoconflicts
betweenthemselves.ThecaseswerealldecidedbytheSupremeCourtofNewSouth
Walesbetween1829and1841.Ineachcase,theimmediatequestionbeforethecourtwas
whetherithadjurisdictiontotryoneIndigenouspersonforthemurderofanother.The
courthadalreadydecidedthatAboriginesweresubjecttoitsjurisdictionwhentheywere
inconflictwiththeEuropeanswhohadcometooccupytheirlands.Thiswasfullyargued
anddecidedinRvLowe,1827.[2]Thatcase,andotherslikeit,leftopenthequestion
examinedinthesecases.
RvBallardistheleastknownofthethree.Theaccountprintedhereisadirecttranscript
ofthenotebookofDowlingJ.[3]DowlingstatesthatthedefendantwascalledDirty
Dick,butthenewspaperreportsofthecasemakeclearthatthevictimwasknownbythat
name.ThedefendantwascalledBallard(orBarnettorBarrettinotheraccounts),butthe
casewasoftencalledDirtyDick'scase.ItwasreportedinlessdetailbytheAustralian,
16June1829andtheSydneyGazette,16June1829.[4]
RvMurrellhasthedubiousreputationofbeingthefoundingcasefortheapplicationof
theterranulliusdoctrineinAustralia.Itistheonlyoneofthethreetobeformally
reported,in(1836)1Legge72.Thisreportwasnotpublisheduntil1896,60yearsafter
thedecisionwasmade.Atthattime,GordonLeggeattemptedtorepairtheinadequacyof
earlyNewSouthWaleslawreportsbyreprintingnewspaperaccountsofwhathethought
werethemostimportantdecisionsoftheSupremeCourt.Inthiscase,hereliedonthe
SydneyGazetteof23February1836and12April1836,buthedidnotchecktheaccount
againstthejudges'notes.TheversionofthejudgmentbyBurtonJwhichisreproduced
hereistheclosestwecangettoanauthenticversionofthecase.Itistakenfromafile
called"SupremeCourt,MiscellaneousCorrespondencerelatingtoAborigines"inthe
ArchivesOfficeofNewSouthWales,5/1161,pp.21016.Theparticulardocumentis
headed"JudgmentofMrJusticeBurtonintheCaseofJackCongoMorralonachargeof
Murder"andappearstohavebeencorrectedinthehandofBurtonJ.Thisreportisa
verbatimtranscriptofthedocument,sofarasthatispossiblewithahandwrittenoriginal,
althoughitomitsdeletionsmadeintheoriginal.ThejudgmentsofForbesCJand
DowlingJaretakenfromtheSydneyGazetteof12April1836.Thesejudges'own
versionsoftheirjudgmentsarenotintheArchivesOfficeofNewSouthWales.The

strikingfeatureoftheirjudgmentsisthecompletereversaloftheirformerdecisioninRv
Ballard.
TherearesignificantdifferencesbetweentheLegge/GazetteversionofBurton's
judgmentandthatinthearchiveswhichisprintedhere.TheLeggeversionomitsthe
statementsthattheIndigenouspeopleofNewSouthWaleswere"entitledtothe
possessionofthoserightswhichassucharevaluabletothem."Italsomissedthemain
conclusion,thathefoundthatnativeshadnotattainedsuchnumbersandcivilisationasto
berecognisedassovereignstatesgovernedbytheirownlaws.Onthesecondpointinthe
judgment,theLeggeversionomittedthepreambleaboutthelandbeingunappropriated
byanyoneatthetimeitwastakenintoactualpossessionoftheking.Thatis,itfailedto
reportthatBurton'sjudgmentwasbasedexplicitlyonaterranulliustheory.Italso
omittedBurton'simportantstatementinthefifthpointthatAborigineswouldhavebeen
liableformurderingoneanotherwhethertheywerealiensorBritishsubjects:thiswas
oneofhiswaysaroundtheargumentthattheyweresubjectonlytotheirowncustoms
andusages.
Assuggestedatthebeginningofhisjudgment,Burtonwaspreparedtodeliveralonger
versionofthejudgment,hadhebeeninaminority.Hisnotesforjudgmentareinthe
sameArchivesOfficefileasthejudgmentitself:atpp.23771.Themostimportant
additionalstatementthereconcernsthesubjectstatusofIndigenouspeople.Itshowsthat
BurtonJdidnotassumethatallIndigenouspeopleresidinginwhatbecameNewSouth
WalesautomaticallybecameBritishsubjectsin1788orontheirsubsequentbirth.They
musteitherbesubjectsoraliens,hesaid,andifaliens,theywereentitledtobecome
subjectsattheirownchoice.Ineitherevent,theywereamenabletothelawofEngland,
Burtonstated.Contrarytoacommonmisconception,thecaseisnotauthorityforthe
propositionthatallIndigenouspeopleinNewSouthWaleswereautomaticallyBritish
subjects.
AfterthecourtfoundthatithadjurisdictionoverMurrell,hewastriedon13May1836
andacquitted.[5]
Thethirdofthesecases,RvBonjonwasdecidedbyWillisJinthePortPhillipdistrictof
NewSouthWales,beforeitsseparationasthenewcolonyofVictoria.Theversionon
whichthisreportisbasedisthatofthePortPhillipPatriotof20September1841.Justice
Willissentanothernewspaperaccount(thatofthePortPhillipHeraldof21September
1831)toGovernorGippsonthedayafterhedeliveredthejudgment.Gippssentitonto
England,andeventuallyitwasprintedinBritishParliamentaryPapers,PapersRelating
toEmigration,theAboriginalPopulationandOtherAffairsinAustralia1844,Irish
UniversityPress,Shannon,1969,Vol.8,ColoniesAustralia,pp.14356.Inhisletterto
thegovernoraccompanyingthenewspaper,WillisJtoldthegovernorthatthisnewspaper
printedthejudgmentfromhisnotes:p.146.Itisthisversionwhichisusedmostoften
today.
ThisreportisbasedonthatofthePortPhillipPatriot,20September1841,p.1.The
Patriotaccountofallbutthebeginningofthejudgmentandthelastparagraphisnearly

identicaltothatoftheHerald,exceptforminordifferencessuchaspunctuation.This
meansthatthePatriotversion,too,wastakenfromthejudge'snotes,andisthusas
reliableanaccountasisnowpossibletopublish.Thejudgmentisprintedhereasit
appearsinthePatriot,includingerrorsintypesettingandtheuseofitalicsforemphasis.
ThePatriotversionwaschosenforpublicationherebecauseoftheadditionalmaterialat
thebeginningandendofthejudgmentwhichisnotintheHerald.Atthebeginning,the
PatriotaloneshowsthatWillisJreferredtoRvMurrell.Theshortestaccountofthecase
wasgivenbythePortPhillipGazette,18September1841,p.3,butonlyitreportsthat
theCrownProsecutorcitedRvBallardandRvMurrellinhisargumentbeforeWillisJ.
[6]
Attheendofhisjudgment,WillisJorderedBonjontostandtrial,whileexpressly
reservingthepointastojurisdiction"whichHisHonorwouldtakefurthertimeto
consider".[7]IfBonjonhadbeenfoundguilty,itislikelythatthejurisdictionpoint
wouldhavebeenheardbyWillis'SupremeCourtcolleaguesinbanco,inSydney.Onthe
dayafterWillis'judgmentwasdelivered,thecourtinMelbournewastoldthattwo
Aborigineshadbeenspearedonthe14th,alsoformurder,butunderAboriginallaw.
AfterevidenceaboutthewayBonjon'scasehadbeeninvestigated,theCrownProsecutor
declinedtoproceedimmediatelywiththetrial,andtheprisonerwasremandeduntilthe
nextsessions.[8]Hewasdischargedthefollowingmonth,however.[9]
JusticeWillis'judgmentinRvBonjondrewcriticismfromDowlingCJ.Hedeclaredthat
theissueofjurisdictionhadfinallybeensettledinRvMurrell,andthatthiscouldhave
beenreinforcedbyanappealtothejudgessittinginSydney.Thisviewwasacceptedby
GovernorGipps,andbytheBritishgovernment.[10]
Whetherbecauseitwastheonlycaseofthethreetohavebeenformallyreported,or
becauseofthestrengthofthecourt,RvMurrellistheonlyonetobecitedwithapproval
inthetwentiethcentury.[11]ThestronglycontrastingjudgmentsinBallardandBonjon
deservecloserattention,notleastbecausetheyaremoreconsistentwiththewritingsof
Vattelontherightsofnomadicpeoplesand,asthejudgmentofWillisJinBonjonshows,
becausetheyaremoreconsistentwiththetreatmentofnativepeoplesinother
jurisdictions.Allofthesecaseswilleventuallybepublishedontheinternet,including
otherversionsofthejudgmentsandwithcommentary,atwww.law.mq.edu.au/~bruce.
RvBallard
SupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(ForbesCJandDowlingJ)
13June1829,Sydney
Aboriginaldefendant,offenceagainstanotherAborigineNativetitleAboriginallaw,
recognitionofAborigines,legalstatus.
TheAttorneyGeneralsoughtthedirectionofthecourtastowhetheranAboriginecould
beprosecutedfortheallegedmurderofanotherAborigine,committedattheDomain,
nearSydney.
Held:

1.TheSupremeCourthasjurisdictionincasesofwrongscommittedbetweenAborigines
andEuropeans,butnotinthoseinwhichtheonlypartiesareAborigines.Ithadalways
beenthepolicyofthejudgesandgovernmentofNewSouthWalesnottointerferein
disputesbetweenAborigines.
2.(perForbesCJ):Aboriginesareentitledtotheirownlaws,withoutinterferenceby
Englishlaw.
3.(perDowlingJ):UntilAboriginesconsent,eitheractuallyorbyimplication,tothe
interpositionofEnglishlawsintheadministrationofjusticeforactscommittedby
themselvesuponthemselves,thereisnoreasonjustifyinginterferencewiththeir
institutions.
4.(perDowlingJ):AboriginesowenofealtytotheEnglish,andthelatterhavenonatural
claimofacknowledgmentorsupremacyoverthem.Englishpeoplehavenoright
wantonlytodepriveAboriginesofanypropertytheypossessorassumedominionover.
AnaboriginalnativeofthisterritorycalledDirtyDickhadbeencommittedfortrialby
theSydneymagistratesforthewilfulmurderofanotheraboriginalnativecalledRobert
Barrett,whowaskilledinanaffraybetweentwotribesofhiscountrymen,under
circumstancesofgreatcruelty.TheprisonerDirtyDickwasnowputtothebar,and[sic]
TheAttorneyGeneralprayedthedirectionoftheCourt,whetherbythelawofEngland
hecouldbeprosecutedfortheallegedmurderofoneofhisowncountrymen;bothhaving
beeninasavagestateatthetimeofthetransactioninquestion.Inhisownjudgmenthe
wasdisposedtoconsenttothedischargeoftheprisonerfromthedifficultyofcoming
accuratelyatthemeritsofthecase;buthewouldsubmittothedirectionofthecourtasto
thecoursetobepursued.
ForbesCJ:Certainlythisisacasesuigeneris,andtheCourtmustdealwithitupon
generalprinciples,intheabsenceofanyfixedknownruleuponthesubject.Accordingto
theviewwhichtheCourttakesofthecase,theCourtisofopinionthattheprisonerought
tobedischargedforwantofjurisdiction.Thefactsofthecase,are,asrepresentedtous,
simplythese:Theprisonerisaccusedofthemurderofoneofhisowntribeoneof
theoriginalnativesofthisCountry,inthesamestateashimselfwanderingaboutthe
country,andlivingintheuncontrolledfreedomofnature.Insomewayorotherhehas
causedthedeathofanotherwildsavage.Theprecisecircumstancesunderwhichtheact
hasbeencommitted,havenotbeenbroughtbeforetheCourt;norindeedwasitnecessary
thattheCourtshouldlookintothesecircumstances.
TheCourtknowsnofurtherthanwhathasbeenstated,namelythatthedeceasedcameby
hisdeathinconsequenceofsomedifferencethatarosebetweenhimandtheprisoner.I
believeithasbeenthepracticeoftheCourtsofthiscountry,sincetheColonywassettled,
nevertointerferewithorenterintothequarrelsthathavetakenplacebetweenoramongst
thenativesthemselves.ThisIlooktoasmatterofhistory,forIbelievenoinstanceisto
befoundonrecordinwhichtheactsofconductoftheaboriginesamongstthemselves
havebeensubmittedtotheconsiderationofourCourtsofJustice.Ithasbeenthepolicy
oftheJudges,&IassumeoftheGovernment,inlikemannerwithotherColonies,notto
enterintoorinterferewithanycauseofdisputeorquarrelbetweentheaboriginalnatives.

InalltransactionsbetweentheBritishSettlers&thenatives,thelawsofthemother
countryhavebeencarriedintoexecution.AggressionsbyBritishsubjects,uponthe
natives,aswellasthosecommittedbythelatterupontheformer,havebeenpunishedby
thelawsofEnglandwheretheexecutionofthoselawshavebeenfoundpracticable.This
hasbeenfoundexpedientforthemutualprotectionofbothsortsofpeople;butIamnot
awarethatBritishlawshavebeenappliedtotheaboriginalnativesintransactionssolely
betweenthemselves,whetherofcontract,tort,orcrime.Indeeditappearstomethatitis
awiseprincipletoabstaininthisColony,ashasbeendoneintheNorthAmericanBritish
Colonies,withtheinstitutionsofthenativeswhich,uponexperiencewillbefoundtorest
uponprinciplesofnaturaljustice.
Thereisonemostimportantdistinctionbetweenthesavage&civilizedstateofman,
namelythatamongstsavagestherearenomagistrates.Thesavagesdecidetheir
differencesuponaprincipleofretaliation.Theygiveupnonaturalrights.Thisisnot
merelymatteroftheorybutpractice.Inthecivilizedstate,mangivesupcertainnatural
rights,inexchangefortheadvantageofsocialsecurity,&otherbenefitarisingfromthe
institutionsofcivilizedlife.Itmaybeaquestionadmittingofdoubt,whetherany
advantagescouldbegained,withoutpreviouspreparation,byingraftingtheinstitutions
ofourcountry,uponthenaturalsystemwhichsavageshaveadoptedfortheirown
government.Itisknownasmatterofexperiencethatthesavagesofthispartoftheglobe,
haveamodeofdressingwrongscommittedamongstthemselves,whichisperfectly
agreeabletotheirownnatures&dispositions,andisproductive,amongstthemselves,of
asmuchgood,asanynovelorstrangeinstitutionwhichmightbeimpartedtothem.Inthe
absenceofamagistracywhichisaninstitutionpeculiartoanadvancedstateof
refinement,thesavageisgovernedbythelawsofhistribe&withtheseheiscontent.
Inpointofpractice,howcouldthelawsofEnglandbeappliedtothisstateofsociety?By
thelawofEnglandthepartyaccusedisentitledtohisfulldefence.Thenhowcouldthis
beneficentprinciplebeactedupon,wherethepartiesarewhollyunacquaintedwithour
language,laws&customs?Iamnotpreparedtosay,thatthemodeofadministering
justiceorrepairingawrongamongstawildsavagepeople,isnotbestlefttothemselves.
Iftheirinstitutions,howeverbarbarousorabhorrentfromournotionsofreligionand
civilization,becomematuredintoasystemandproducedalltheeffectsupontheir
intercourse,thatalessobjectionablecourseofproceeding(inourjudgment)could
produce,thenIknownotuponwhatprincipleofmunicipaljurisdictionitwouldberight
tointerferewiththem.
Themostimportantobjectofallhumanassociationsistoprocureprotection&security
frominternalaswellasexternalaggression.Thisprinciplewillbefoundtoinfluencethe
associationsofsomeofthewildestsavagetribes.Theymakelawsforthemselves,which
arepreservedinviolate,&arerigidlyactedupon.Howevershockingsomeoftheir
institutionsmaybetoournotionsofhumanity&justice,yetIamatlosstoknowhow,or
uponwhatprinciplethiscourtcouldtakecognizanceofoffencescommittedbya
barbarouspeopleamongstthemselves.Theycannotbesupposedtobeacquaintedwith

ourlaws,&naturepromptsthemtodisdaintheinterpositionofaraceofpeoplewhom
theyfindfixedinacountrytowhichtheydidnotoriginallybelong.
Thereisreason&goodsenseintheprinciplethatinalltransactionsbetweenthenatives
&Britishsubjects,thelawsofthelattershallprevail,becausetheyaffordequal
protectiontoallmenwhetheractuallyorbyfictionoflawbroughtwithintheir
cognizance.ButIknownoprincipleofmunicipalornationallaw,whichshallsubjectthe
inhabitantsofanewlyfoundcountry,totheoperationofthelawsofthefinders,in
mattersofdispute,injury,oraggressionbetweenthemselves.Ifpartofoursystemistobe
introducedamongstthem,whynotthewhole?Wherewillyoudrawtheline:the
interventionofourcourtsofjustice,evenifpracticable,mustleadtootherinterferences,
asincompatibleasimpolitic,intheaffairsofharmlessinoffensivesavages.Withthese
generalobservations,IamofopinionthatthismanisnotamenabletoEnglishlawforthe
actheissupposedtohavecommitted.
StephenJwasabsent.
DowlingJ:Thispointcomesuponmeentirelybysurprise,&thereforeIhavehadno
opportunityofconsideringitinamannersatisfactorytomyownmind.Itappearstome
howeverthattheobservationswhichhavefallenfromhisHonortheChiefJustice,are
mostconsentaneouswithreason&principle.UntiltheaboriginalnativesofthisCountry
shallconsent,eitheractuallyorbyimplication,totheinterpositionofourlawsinthe
administrationofjusticeforactscommittedbythemselvesuponthemselves,Iknowofno
reasonhuman,ordivine,whichoughttojustifyusininterferingwiththeirinstitutions
evenifsuchaninterferencewerepracticable.ItisanundoubtedprinciplethataColony
ofEnglishmensettledinanewfoundcountryshallbegovernedbythelawsoftheparent
statesofarasthoselawsareapplicabletotheconditionoftheColony.
Thisprincipleiscarriedastepfarther,wherethenewfoundcountryisinhabitedby
aborigines.Iftheinhabitantsholdintercoursewiththenewsettlersthenthelawsofthe
settlersshallbeappealedtoincaseofdisputeinjuryoraggression,arisingfromtheone
sideortheother.Thisruleisfoundeduponprinciplesofequaljustice,inasmuchasthe
lawofEnglandwillnotendurewrongorinjury.Thesavage,ortheforeignerisequally
entitledtoprotectionfromBritishlaw,ifbycircumstancesthatlawcanbeadministered
betweenBritons&thesavageorforeigner.Amongstcivilizednationsthisistheuniversal
principle,thatthelexloci,shalldeterminethedisputesarisingbetweenthenative&the
foreigner.Butallanalogyfailswhenitisattemptedtoenforcethelawsofaforeign
countryamongstaraceofpeople,whoowenofealtytous,andoverwhomwehaveno
naturalclaimofacknowledgmentorsupremacy.
Wehavearighttosubjectthemtoourlawsiftheyinjureus,butIknowofnoright
possessedbyus,ofinterferingwheretheirdisputesoracts,areconfinedtothemselves,
andaffectthemonly.MostundoubtedlyitismurderinanEnglishmantokillan
aboriginalnativewithoutexcuseorreason.SothelawofEnglandwouldholdthenative

amenablefordestroyinganEnglishman,wheretheinjurywasunprovoked.Thesame
principleofprotectionappliedtothepreservationofproperty,althoughthenotionsof
propertymaybeveryimperfectinthenative.TheEnglishmanhasnorightwantonlyto
deprivethesavageofanypropertyhepossessesorassumesadominionover.Onthe
otherhandthenativewouldberesponsibleforaggressionsonthepropertyofthe
Englishman.Itishowever,unnecessarytofollowthisprincipleanyfarther.
Thesearegeneralobservationssuggestedontheoccasion,withoutmeaningthemtohave
theeffectofjudicialdetermination.Caseshaverepeatedlyariseninthiscourtwherethe
firstprinciplehasbeenactedupon,bothwhereanEnglishmanhasmurderedanative,and
whereanativehasmurderedanEnglishman.Beyondthis,thedoctrinehasnotbeen
carried;&therefore,asitseemstome,itwouldbemostunjustandunconscionableto
holdtheprisoneramenabletothelawofEnglandforanoffencecommittedagainstoneof
hisowntribe.
TheprisonerwasthereforeDischarged.
RvMurrell
SupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(ForbesCJ,DowlingandBurtonJJ)
11April1836,Sydney
Aboriginaldefendant,offenceagainstanotherAborigineAboriginallaw,recognitionof
terranulliusAborigines,legalstatus.
JackCongoMurrell,anAborigine,waschargedwiththemurderofanotherAborigine,
BillJabingiorJabenguy,ontheWindsorroad,westofSydney.Hiscounsel,Sydney
Stephen,arguedthattheSupremeCourthadnojurisdictiontotryoneAborigineforthe
murderofanother.Theyweregovernedbytheirownusagesandcustoms,heargued,and
notbythelawsofEngland.TheywerenotBritishsubjects,andwerenotprotectedby
Englishlaw.NewSouthWaleswasnotadesertedcountryatthetimeofEuropean
settlement,noraconqueredorcededone.Ithadapopulationwithcustomsandusagesof
theirown,andthesettlerswereobligedtoobeythosecustoms,ratherthantheAborigines
thelawsofEngland.Thedefendantwassubjecttopunishmentbyhisowntribeifhehad
killedJabingi,whichEnglishlawcouldnotprevent.ItwasimpracticaltotryAborigines,
andthecourthadnojurisdictionexceptoversubjectsoftheCrown,whichthedefendant
wasnot.
TheAttorneyGeneralarguedthatthecourtdidhavejurisdiction.Englishlawdidnotnot
recogniseanyindependentpowertoexistinaBritishterritory;itcannotbeadmittedto
setupalaworusagecontrarytothelawsofEngland.Theallegedoffencetookplace
withinthegeographicallimitsoftheCourt'sjurisdiction,andthosewhovisitedthe
colonyweresubjecttoitslaws.TheKinghadanobligationtoprotectnatives.
1.AboriginesareamenabletothelawofEnglandforoffencescommittedagainstone
another.

2.Theyarefreeandindependentpeoples,entitledtothepossessionofthoserightswhich
arevaluabletothem,buttheydonothavesovereignstatesorlawsoftheirown.
3.ThelandofNewSouthWaleswasunappropriatedbyanyoneatthetimetheBritish
Kingtookactualpossessionofit.
4.TheEnglishnationobtainedandexercisedformanyyearstherightsofDomainand
Empireoverthecountrythuspossessed,asrecognisedbytheAustralianCourtsAct1828
(9Geo4c83).
5.TheallegedoffencetookplaceinanareawhereEnglishlawprevailed,andfellwithin
thejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales.
6.Subjectsandalienslivinginthecolonywereentitledtothesameprotection.
7.TherearenoinsurmountablehardshipsintryingAboriginesforcrimes.
IngivingjudgmentinthiscasetheChiefJusticeremarkedthatademurrerhadbeenfiled,
denyingthejurisdictionoftheCourt,whichmustbeoverruled,astheCourthad
jurisdictioninthecase.Onaformeroccasionofthiskind,HisMajesty'sAttorney
GeneralhadputittotheCourtwhetherheshouldbringsuchacasebeforetheCourt,and
whetheritwasthedescriptionofcrimewhichwouldberecognisedbythelawsof
England;theJudgeshadthenstatedthatitwasforhimtousehissounddiscretioninthe
case,butonthatoccasionnodiscussiontookplaceastotheauthorityoftheCourtno
opinionwasgivenastotheirjurisdiction.JudgeBurtonhadputtogetheranopinionin
whichthewholeBenchcoincided;he(JudgeB)wouldreadittothem.
InasmuchastheCourtisunanimousinoverrulingthepleawhichhasbeenfiledforthe
prisonerdenyingthejurisdictionofthisCourtoverhimfortheoffencestateduponthe
Recordtohavebeencommittedbyhimtherebydecidingthattheaboriginalnativesof
thisColonyareamenabletothelawsoftheColonyforoffencescommittedwithinit
againstthepersonsofeachotherandagainstthepeaceofourLordtheKing,Idonot
consideritnecessarytostateatlarge,thereasonsuponwhichIhavefoundedmy
individualopinion.ButIthinkitrighttostatebrieflythegroundsofmyopinionwhich
arethese:
1stalthoughitbegrantedthattheaboriginalnativesofNewHollandareentitledtobe
regardedbyCivilizednationsasafreeandindependentpeople,andareentitledtothe
possessionofthoserightswhichassucharevaluabletothem,yetthevarioustribeshad
notattainedatthefirstsettlementoftheEnglishpeopleamongstthemtosuchaposition
inpointofnumbersandcivilization,andtosuchaformofGovernmentandlaws,astobe
entitledtoberecognizedassomanysovereignstatesgovernedbylawsoftheirown.
2ndly,Thatatractofcountrybeforeunappropriatedbyanyonehasbeentakeninto
actualpossessionbytheKingofEnglandunderthesanctionofParliamentcomprehended
withinthefollowinglimitsascontainedinaproclamationofHisExcellencythe
Governor24thAugust1835,GovernmentGazette9thSept.followingviz,"extending
fromtheNorthernCapeorExtremityoftheCoastcalledCapeYorkinlatitude10o37'S.
totheSouthernExtremityofthesaidTerritoryofNewSouthWalesorWilson's

Promontoryinthelatitudeof39o12'S.andembracingallthecountryinlandtothe
Westwardasfaras129oEastlongitudereckonedfromthemeridianofGreenwich
includingalltheIslandsadjacentinthePacificOceanwithinthelatitudeaforesaidand
includingalsoNorfolkIsland."
3rdly,ThattheEnglishnationhasobtainedandexercisedformanyyearstherightsof
DomainandEmpireoverthecountrythuspossessedandparticularlyitisdesignatedby
anActoftheImperialParliament,9Geo4.c.83.asHisMajesty'sSettlementandColony
ofNewSouthWales;andCourtsofJudicaturehavebeenestablishedandthelawsof
Englandaredeclaredtobethosewhichshallbeadministeredwithinitandalocal
legislatureisgiventoit.
4thly,AnoffenceisstatedupontheRecordtohavebeencommittedbytheprisoner
withinthisColony,aplacewherebytheCommonLawandbytheStat.9Geo.4.c83.
thelawofEnglandisthelawoftheland,whichifcommittedbyhimatWestminsterin
England,wouldrenderhimamenabletotheJurisdictionofHisMajesty'sCourtofKings
Bench;andby9Geo4.c83itisenactedthatthisCourt"shallhavecognizanceofall
pleascivil,criminal,ormixed,inallcaseswhatsoeverasfullyandamplytoallintents
andpurposesinNewSouthWalesandallandeverytheIslandsandterritorieswhichnor
are,orhereaftermaybesubjecttoordependentupontheGovernmentthereofasHis
Majesty'sCourtsofKingsBench,CommonPleas,andExchequeratWestminsteror
eitherofthemlawfullyhaveorhathinEngland,"andthatthisCourtshallbeatalltimesa
CourtofOyerandTerminerandgaoldeliveryinandforNewSouthWalesandthe
Dependenciesthereof"andthat"theJudgesshallhaveandexercisesuchandthelike
JurisdictionandauthorityinNewSouthWalesandthedependenciesthereofasthe
JudgesoftheCourtsofKingsBench,CommonPleas,andExchequerinEnglandorany
ofthemlawfullyhave&exercise,andasshallbenecessaryforcarryingineffectthe
severalJurisdictions,powersandauthoritiescommittedtoit."
5thly,ThisCourthasrepeatedlytriedandevenexecutedaboriginalnativesofthis
Colony,foroffencescommittedbythemuponsubjectsoftheKing,eversincethe
openingoftheCourtinMay1824;andthereisnodistinctioninlawinrespecttothe
protectionduetohispersonbetweenasubjectlivinginthisColonyundertheKings
PeaceandanalienlivingthereinundertheKingsPeace.
TheauthoritiesforthesepositionsareVattel'sTreatiseonthelawofnationsB1.ch.18
sec203.204.205.Ib.
Bl.C7..81.ch18.sec209.ch19.sec213.B2.ch7sec94.Ib.ch8.sec100&101.
103104.108:
Blackstone'sCommentaries1Vol.page254sec4.ChristianEditionandpage370.
Hawk.P.C.B.l.ch.2.sec5.
FostersCrownLawDisc.1.p.188
Stat.28Edw.3.c13.sec2

LordCokeinCalvin'sCase4Coke10&11andthecasesofShirly3&4W.&M.and
StephenoFarraradeGamoandEmanuelLewisTinoca36Eliz.thereinmentioned.
Respectingthosedifficultiesandinconveniencesandhardshipswhichhavebeenreferred
toaslikelytoarisefromthisdecision,IwillbrieflysaythatIthinktheyhavebeenmuch
overrated.Somewhichhavebeenstated,asforexampletheprobabilityofmultiplied
businesstoMagistratesandothersconcernedintheadministrationofJustice,Ilookupon
aslittlelikelytooccur,butifoccurringcertaintoproducethebestresultsastothe
Nativesthemselves:difficulties,itisthebusinessofthelocallegislaturetoremoveand
hardshipsIdoubtnotthatHisMajesty,orthosevestedwiththeexerciseofHisRoyal
PrerogativeofMercy,willbereadyineverycasewhichmayjustlycallitforth,toextend
ittopeoplesocircumstancedasthey.
ButIamofopinionthatthegreatestpossibleinconvenienceandscandaltothis
communitywouldbeconsequentifitweretobeholdenbythisCourtthatithasno
Jurisdictioninsuchacaseasthepresenttobeholdeninfactthatcrimesofmurderand
othersofalmostequalenormitymaybecommittedbythosepeopleinourStreetswithout
restraintsotheybecommittedonlyupononeanother!&thatourlawsarenosanctuaryto
them.
RvBonjon
SupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(WillisJ)
16September1841,Melbourne
Aboriginaldefendant,offenceagainstanotherAborigineNativetitleAboriginallaw,
recognitionofAborigines,legalstatusBatmanpurchaseoflandatMelbourne
TreatiesTreatyofWaitangi.
Bonjon,aWadoraman,waschargedwiththeshootingmurderofYammowing,ofthe
Colijonpeople,atGeelong.TheproceedingsbeforeWillisJbeganwithevidenceasto
thecapacityofthedefendanttopleadthejurisdictionoftheCourt,andtopleadguiltyor
notguilty.Thejuryfoundthathelackedcapacitytopleadthejurisdiction,butthejudge
foundthatBonjonwas"notsototallywantingintellectasnottosayguiltyornotguilty".
TheCourtthenheardargumentonthequestionofwhetherithadjurisdictiontoheara
chargeofmurderbyoneAborigineofanother.
ArguingagainsttheCourt'sjurisdiction,MrRedmondBarry,forBonjon,saidthatthere
isnothingintheestablishmentofBritishsovereigntyinthiscountrywhichauthorisesthe
CourttosubmittheAboriginalnativestopunishmentforactsofaggressioncommitted
interse.NewSouthWaleswasoccupiedbytheBritish,heargued,ratherthanconquered
orceded.OccupationgavetheCrownarighttothesoil,butnottoanyauthorityoverthe
Indigenousinhabitantsassubjects,unlesstherebesometreaty,compactorother
demonstrationoftheirdesiretocomeunderEnglishlaw.Thisdoesnotinterferewiththe
rightofthesovereigntopunishAborigineswhoattackthepersonsorpropertyofBritish
settlers,orthereverse.NostatutestatesthatAboriginesareBritishsubjects,andthereis
notreatyorcompactshowingtheirsubmissiontoBritishauthority;theirassentwas

10

necessary.NoristhereanyreciprocitybetweenthemandtheCrowntorenderthem
amenabletothecriminallaw.Itisimpossibletoapplythewholeofthatlawtothem.
Aborigineshavetheirownmodesofpunishment,undertheirownregulations.Their
regulations,likethoseofallsocieties,extendtomurder.TheAboriginesliveinself
governingcommunities.Englishlaw,then,wasnottheonlylawinthecolony,andit
couldnotbeimposedonthembyterror.
MrCroke,theCrownProsecutor,repliedthatitislawfulforacivilisedcountrytooccupy
theterritoryofuncivilisedpersons,solongastheyleavethemsufficientlandtoenable
themtoacquiresubsistence.Asaconsequenceofsuchsettlement,thecommonlawof
EnglandwastransferredtothePortPhillipDistrictofNewSouthWales.Allpersons
withinthatareaowealocalallegiancetotheQueen,andareboundbyEnglishlaweven
forconflictsinterse.Theyareprotectedbythelaw,andboundtoobeyit.Sufficientland
havingbeenleftforthem,theyhavenooriginalrightstotheterritoryofPortPhillip,but
merelyaneasementoverthesoil.BonjonisasmuchamenabletoEnglishlawasaBritish
subject.
1.AsinglejudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesatPortPhillipisnotbound
bythedecisioninRvMurrell(1836)1Legge72.
2.AboriginesarebothsubjecttoandprotectedbyEnglishlawinrelationtoconflicts
betweenthemandtheBritishinNewSouthWales.
3.TheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWaleshasnojurisdictionovercrimescommittedby
Aboriginesagainstoneanother.TheyarenotamenabletoEnglishlaw,exceptincasesof
conflictwiththeBritish.NoexpressenactmentortreatymakesthemsubjecttoEnglish
law.
4.NewSouthWaleswasnotacquiredbyconquest,ortreaty.Norwasitunoccupiedat
thetimethecolonycommenced.
5.Aboriginesaredistinctthoughdependentallies,notBritishsubjects.Theyhavenot
consentedtoBritishoccupationorsovereignty.Theyareentitledtoexercisetheirown
usagesandlaws.
6.JusticeWillisreservedtherighttoalterhisconclusionsontheseissues.
IwillnowcontinuedHisHonorstatemyviewsonthesubject,atthesametimeImay
say,thatIdonotconsidermyselfboundbytheopinionofeitherMr.ChiefJustice
Forbes,Mr.JusticeBurton,orMr.ChiefJusticeDowlinginthepresentcase.Ihaveto
thankMr.Barryfortheveryablemannerinwhichhehasarguedthecaseforthe
prisoner;thewholeofhisargumentshowsaconsiderabledealoftalent,industryand
research;hehavingkindlyundertakingthedefenceoftheprisoneratmysuggestion.I
havealsotothanktheCrownProsecutorfortheablemannerinwhichhesupportedthe
rightsoftheCrown.Thecaseappearstometobethis,Bonjon,anaboriginalwithinthe
DistrictofPortPhillip,wascommittedtogaolonthetwentyfifthofAugust1841,byN.
A.Fenwick,Esquire,thePoliceMagistrateofGeelong,andEBAddis,andFosterFyans,
Esquires,JusticesofthePeacefortheTerritoryofNewSouthWales,forthealleged

11

murder(onoraboutthe14thoflastJuly),ofYammowing,alsoanaboriginalwithinthis
district.
AninformationhasbeenfiledbyMr.Croke,theCrownProsecutorforthedistrict,
againsttheprisonerforthisoffence,andthequestionnowis,whethertheSupremeCourt
inacaselikethishasanyjurisdiction?Areinfacttheaborigines(exceptwithreference
toaggressionsontheirpartagainstthecolonists,andwithregardtothatprotectionfrom
theaggressionsofthecolonistswhichtheaboriginesareindisputablyentitledto),subject
tothelawofEnglandasitprevailsinthisColony?WithregardtosuchaggressionsasI
havementionedtheyareentitledtobeconsideredandtreated,inmyopinion,asifthey
wereBritishsubjects.
Therecentcaseofthetwoaboriginals,MerridioandNegarilrecentlytriedbeforeMr.
JusticeBurton,atSydney,andexecutedforthemurderofWilliamTuck;andthecaseof
CharlesKilmaister,andsixothercolonists,alsotriedbeforeMr.JusticeBurton,at
Sydney,inDecember1838,andexecuted,forthemurderoftwoaboriginalchildrenand
anadultaboriginalnamedCharley,showhowtheEnglishlawhasbeenappliedin
criminalcasesbetweenthecolonistsandtheaborigines.Iamaware,however,thatMr.
MontgomeryMartin,inhishistoryofthiscolony(chap.6)thusmentionsthecaseofan
aboriginalblackTommywhowashangedformurderatSydney,in1827."The
circumstances,hesays,connectedwiththisexecutionwereverysingular,anddeserve
publicity.Fromthestatementpreviouslymadetome,Ibelievedthemantobeinnocent,
andIthereforeattendedhistrialtoaidinthedefenceofamanwhoknewnotawordof
ourlanguage,andowednoobediencetoourlaws."Mr.Martin,thoughanauthor,isnot
legalauthority.Thepointhoweverfordecisioninthecasenowbeforeme,isavery
differentone.
Irepeatthatitisnotwithreferencetoanyaggressionsbetweentheblackandwhite
population,butsimplywhethertheEnglishlawcanbelegallyapplied;orrather,swornas
IamtoadministerthelawofEnglandasitprevailsinthiscolony,canIlegallyexercise
anyjurisdiction,withreferencetoanycrimescommittedbytheaboriginesagainsteach
other?This,andthisaloneisthequestion;anditisaquestion,affectingasitdoesavast
andhithertoneglected,oppressed,anddeeplyinjuredmultitudeofthehumanrace,more
worthyofthejudicatureofaRomanSenatethanofanobscureandsinglecolonialJudge;
butitismyconsolation,thatshouldIerrinjudgment,thaterrormayspeedilybe
corrected,andcompletejusticeprovided,notindeedbyaRomanSenate,butbythe
surpassingwisdomandhumanityoftheImperialParliament.
Theundueassumptionoflegaljurisdictiondarkenstheannalsofourcountrywiththe
crimeofRegicide;ithurriedtothegraveanunfortunateMissionaryinthecolonywhence
Icame,buttheresprangfromhisashesasocietywhichhavingextinguishedslavery,now
directsitsviewstotheprotectionoftheaborigineswithintheBritishsettlements.I
believeittobethedutyofajudgefearlesslyandhonestly,yetwithallduecareand
circumspection,toextendtoitsutmostvergehisjudicialauthoritywhenoccasionshall

12

require;butIbelieveitequallytobehisdutytoabstainfromitsexercisewhenany
reasonabledoubtcanbeentertainedofhisjurisdiction.Thefairandlovelyfaceofjustice,
ifurgedbeyondherlegalboundary,assumestheloathsomeanddistortedfeaturesof
tyrannyandguilt.
"Estmodusinrebus,suntcertideniquefines,
Quosultracitraquenequitconsistererectum."
TheaddressoftheBritishHouseofCommonstothelateKing,passedunanimously,
July,1834,(andsetforthintheReportoftheSelectCommitteeoftheHouseof
CommonsontheAborigineswhereBritishsettlementsaremade,andtowhichIshall
havefrequentoccasiontorefer),statesthathis"faithfulCommonsinParliament
assembledaredeeplyimpressedwiththedutyofactingupontheprinciplesofjusticeand
humanityintheintercourseandrelationofthiscountry(theUnitedKingdom)withthe
nativeinhabitantsofitsColonialsettlementsofaffordingthemprotectioninthe
enjoymentoftheircivilrights,andofimpartingtothemthatdegreeofcivilization,and
thatreligionwithwhichProvidencehasblessedthisnation;andithumblyprays,thathis
MajestywilltakesuchmeasuresandgivesuchdirectionstotheGovernorsandOfficers
ofhisMajesty'ssettlementsandplantations,asshallsecuretothenativesthedue
observance,andtheprotectionoftheirrightspromotethespreadofcivilizationamong
them,andleadthemtothepeacefulandvoluntaryreceptionoftheChristianreligion."
"Thisaddress,(saystheReport)astheChancelloroftheExchequerobserved;sofarfrom
beingtheexpressionofanynewprinciple,onlyembodiesandrecognisesprincipleson
whichtheBritishGovernmenthasforaconsiderabletimebeendisposedtoact."The
Reportfurtherstates,"Itmightbepresumedthatthenativeinhabitantsofanyland,have
anincontrovertiblerighttotheirownsoil;itisaplainandsacredrightwhichseemsnot
tohavebeenunderstood.Europeanshaveenteredtheirbordersuninvited,andwhen
there,havenotonlyactedasiftheyweretheundoubtedlordsofthesoil,buthave
punishedthenativesasaggressorsiftheyhaveevincedadispositiontoliveintheirown
country.Iftheyhavebeenfoundupontheirownproperty(andthisissaidwithreference
totheAustralianAborigines)theyhavebeenhuntedasthievesandrobberstheyhave
beendrivenbackintotheinteriorasiftheyweredogsorkangaroos."
ToelucidatesofarasIamablethepointfordecision,Iwillfirstbrieflytracethehistory
ofthiscolonyandofthesettlementofthisdistrict,atthesametimeremarkingonthe
characterwhichhasbeengivenoftheAborigines;andinthesecondplace,statesomuch
oftheacknowledgedlawofnationsandthemannerithasbeenacteduponwithregardto
Aborigines,asseemstometobearonthesubject,addingafewnoticesofthemannerin
whichuncivilizedtribeshavebeentreatedwithinotherBritishColonies,andthesteps
takeninColonieswhereEnglishlawwasinforce.Iwillpremisethatthepolicy,or
impolicyofanexistingsystemcanavailnothinginthepresentinstance.Iamhereasa
Judgetodeclaretheright,andnottohaverecoursetotheexpedient.Icanneverpermit
theendtojustifyanyunduemeansforitsaccomplishment.Thismaybepolicyand
wisdominastatesman,butitislittlelessthantreasoninaJudge.Hemustnot
"Wrestthelawtohisauthority,
Ordoagreatright,throughalittlewrong."

13

Buttoproceedwiththehistoryofthecolony:whatevermaybetheclaimsofotherstothe
discoveryofthevastislandofNewHolland,therecanbenodoubtthatourEnglish
navigator,CaptainCook,sailingfromPlymouthinAugust1768,onhiswellknown
scientificvoyage,afterhavingobservedatMattavaiinOtaheite,thetransitofVenusover
theSun,inJune1769,indueform,andwithgreatadvantage,anddiscoveredtheSociety
islands;sailedtoNewZealand,andthencetoNewHolland;theeasterncoastofwhich,
unexaminedbefore,heexploredwithattentivediligenceforthespaceof1800miles;
affixingtothispartofthecountrythenameofNewSouthWales,hetookpossessionofit
inthenameofhissovereign.Earlyintheyear1785,owingtothepreviousrevolutionand
thenrecentdeclarationoftheindependenceoftheBritishColonies,(nowUnitedStatesof
America)theattentionoftheBritishGovernmentwasnaturallydirectedtothestateofthe
convictsformerlytransportedtothosepossessions.
IntheHouseofCommonsMr.Burkeaskedwhatwastobedonewiththeunhappy
personssentencedtotransportation?ThisgaverisetotheColonialscheme,adopted
duringtheadministrationofMr.Pitttocleartheprisons,withaneyetotheeventual
benefitsderivablefromnewpossessions.TheKingorderedaconsiderableembarkation
forBotanyBay,inNewSouthWales.Thenumberofconvictsamountedto584men,and
242women;guardedby212marines.Capt.ArthurPhillip,anavalofficer,wasinvested
withthechiefcommandofthesquadron,anddestinedtobethefirstgovernorofthe
eventualcolony.
"Finibusexpulsipatriisnovaregnapetentes."
TheysailedfromEnglandintheearlypartoftheyear1787,andarrivedinBotanyBayin
January1788.Ontheshoreappearedabodyofsavages,armedwithspears,which,
however,theythrewdownassoonastheyfoundthestrangershadnohostileintention;
theyhadnottheleastparticleofclothing,yettheydidnotseemsurprisedatthesightof
wellcladpersons,orimpressedwithasenseofshame.Findingthebaytobe
inconvenient,PortJacksonwasfixedupon,asamoredesirablespot;andatoneofthe
covesofthisharbour,namedfromLordSydney,anorderlydisembarkationtookplace.
Whilethemajorityofthemenwereclearingthegroundofthetreesandunderwoodwith
whichitwasencumbered,ahastyencampmentaffordedtemporaryshelter;andata
meetingofthewholecolony,formalpossessionwastakenofthatpartofNewHolland
whichextendsfromYorkCapetotheSoutheasternCape,andfromthecoasttothe135
ofeastlongitude;acountry,towhichwasgiventhedenominationofNewSouthWales,
muchmoreextensivethanalltheBritishdominionsinEurope.
TheGovernor,invariousexcursions,endeavouredtoconciliatethenatives,buttheylong
continuedtobeshyandjealous;theyappearedtobelongtothenumerousracedispersed
overtheSouthSeaIslands;theyhadmadelittleprogressinthearts,theircanoeswere
wretchedlyformed,theirhutswereveryslightandincommodious;and,theycouldnot
securethemselvesagainstthefrequentvisitationsoffamine.Theprogressofthecolony,
toaregularestablishment,wasslow:suppliesofdelinquentswereoccasionallysent;but

14

sucharticlesofsubsistenceasthecolonistscouldnotobtainfromthelandwhichthey
inhabited,didnotalwaysarrivefromothercountriessosoonastheywererequired,and
thescarcitysometimeborderedonfamine.AndhereIcannotbutagreewithwhatissaid
byLordBacon"Ilikeaplantationinapuresoil,thatis,wherepeoplearenot
displantedtotheendtoplantinothers;forelseitisratheranextirpation,thana
plantation.""Itisashamefulthing,"headds,"totakethescumofthepeople,and
wretchedcondemnedmen,tobethepeoplewithwhomyouplant."
YetsuchwastheplantationofNewSouthWales.Withregardtothecharacterofthe
Aboriginesofthecolony,itwassaidbythosewhofirstvisitedNewHolland,"thatthe
peoplewhoinhabitthevariouspartsofit,appeartobeofonerace.Theyareevidently
ruderthanmostoftheAmericans,andhavemadestilllessprogressinimprovementand
theartsoflife.Thereisnottheleastappearanceofcultivationinanypartofthisvast
region;theinhabitantsareextremelyfew,sothatthecountryappearstobealmost
desolate.TheirtribesarestillmoreinconsiderablethanthoseofAmerica.Theydepend
forsubsistencealmostentirelyonfishing;theydonotsettleinoneplace,butroamabout
inquestoffood.Bothsexesgostarknaked.Theirhabitations,utensils,&c.,aremore
simpleandrudethanthoseoftheAmericans."Subsequentobservationhasshownthe
incorrectnessofmuchofthisstatement,which,doubtless,mayformerlyhavehadweight
withtheBritishGovernment.TheLordBishopofAustralia,previouslytheArchdeacon,
Dr.Broughton,(inhisevidencebeforetheCommitteeoftheHouseofCommons,)
althoughhesays,"thattheAboriginesareinastateofextremedegradationand
ignorance,"yetadds,"thathedoesnotascribetheirpresentbarbarismtoany
unconquerabledullnessofintellect,butmerelytotheirloveoferraticliberty;andthinks
theirintellect,whenitisexercised,isveryacuteuponsubjectsthattheychoosetoapply
itto."HisLordshipstates,"thattheconsequenceofoursettlementatSydney,wasto
driveawaytheAboriginesfrompossessionswhichtheyhadpreviouslyoccupied.""They
stillhaunt,"hesays,"andcontinueintheirnaturalplaces;theyreturntoit,andlinger
aboutit;buttheyhavenosettledplace,properlysocalleditisalloccupiedbythe
Europeans."HisLordshipalsostatedhisopinionastotheirnumbers,whichcertainly
doesnotseemtobeveryinconsiderable.Mr.SaxeBannister,formerlyAttorneyGeneral
ofthiscolony,inhisevidencebeforethesameCommittee(onthe31stAugust,1835,)
aftercomplaining,that,inhistimeinNewSouthWales,aninterpreter(betweenthe
Aboriginesandcolonists)couldnotbefoundtocomeintoanycourtofjustice,says,"we
oughtforthwithtobegin,atleast,toreducethelawsandusagesoftheAboriginaltribes
tolanguage,printthem,anddirectourcourtsofjusticetorespectthoselawsinproper
cases."
Hence,itisevident,accordingtoMr.Bannister'stestimony,thattheAboriginesofthis
colonyhavelawsandusagesoftheirown.Mr.BannisteralsohandedapapertoMr.T.F.
Buxton,chairmanoftheCommittee,datedthe19thAugust,1835,inwhich(underthe
headof"MeasuresaffectingtheSwanRiverandotherNewAustralianColonies,")he
says,"Maketreatieswiththenativesbeforeproceedingfarther."TheRev.JohnDunmore
Lang,thehead,Ibelieve,ofthePresbyterianChurchinthiscolony,inalettertoMr.T.

15

F.Buxton,ofthe10thJune,1834,appendedtoMinutesofEvidencebeforethe
CommitteeIhavementioned,writesasfollows:"They(theAboriginesofNewSouth
Wales)aredividedintoaninfinityoftribes,speakinganinfinityofbarbaroustongues;
subsistingonwhatevertheriversortheforestsproducespontaneouslywithoutclothing
withouthousesequallyignorantofmanufacturesandofagriculturebutgenerally
inastateofwarfarewitheachother.Theyareneitherdevoidofintelligence,however,
nordestituteofcapacity;andintheirnativewilds,andespeciallyinseasonswhengame
iseasilyprocurable,theyarebynomeansstrangerstoacertainspeciesofenjoyment.
Theirsongsareartless,butagreeablymelodious,andsometimesevenpoetical;their
dancesareanaccurateimitationofthemotionsoftheinferioranimalsthatinhabittheir
nativeforests;andtheirmockfightsareastillmoreaccuraterepresentationofreal
warfarethananEuropeanreview."IfindthatinaletterfromaMr.JohnBatman,
inclosedbyGovernorArthur,fromVanDiemen'sLandof4thJuly,1835,totheRight.
HonorableTSpringRice,(nowLordMonteagle,)thenHerMajesty'sColonialSecretary
ofState;thatMr.Batmanstates"thechiefs(thatis,thechiefsoftheaboriginaltribesat
PortPhillip,)"tomanifesttheirfriendlyfeelingstowardsme,insisteduponmyreceiving
fromthemtwonativecloaks,andseveralbaskets,madebythewomen,andalsosomeof
theirimplementsofdefence.Thewomengenerallyareclothedwithcloaksofa
descriptionsomewhatsimilar,andtheycertainlyappeartometobeofasuperiorraceto
anynativeswhichIhaveeverseen."
Thus,accordingtothesestatementsrespectingtheaborigines,itappearsthattheyareby
nomeansdevoidofcapacitythattheyhavelawsandusagesoftheirownthattreaties
shouldbemadewiththemandthattheyhavebeendrivenaway,fromSydneyatleast,
bythesettlementofthecolonists,butstilllingerabouttheirnativehaunts.Thattheydo
solingerinthisdistrictthatthosewhoaretermedbyMr.Batman,inaidofhisviews,
andthoseofotherspeculativeadventurers,"asuperiorrace,"stilllingeraboutthistown
ofMelbourne,onceintheiractualoccupation,isseenbytheirfrequentassembliesinthe
immediatevicinity,andthemultitudeofthemsocongregatedatthisverymoment.The
scenesofdrunkennessofindividualsbelongingtothisunfortunateracedailywitnessed
byallinthestreetsofMelbournewillaccountforthatdecay,fortheirseemingtowear
out(astheLordBishopjustlysays)anddiminishinnumberswhereverEuropeansmeet
withthem.RocheforttellsusthatanAboriginalofadifferentcountry,anoldCharib,
manyyearssincethusaddressedaWestIndianplanter,"Ourpeoplearebecomealmost
asbadasyours,wearesomuchalteredsinceyoucameamongus,thatwehardlyknow
ourselves,andwethinkitisowingtosomelancholyachange,thathurricanesaremore
frequentthantheywereformerly.Itistheevilspiritthathasdoneallthiswhohas
takenourbestlandsfromus,andgivenusuptothedominionofChristians."Itappears
bytheParliamentaryReportIhavesofrequentlyreferredto,that"Fromtheprevelanceof
infanticide,fromintemperance,andEuropeandiseases;thenumberoftheAboriginesis
evidentlyandrapidlydiminishinginalltheoldersettlementsofthecolony,andthatin
theneighbourhoodofSydneyespecially,theypresentmerelytheshadowofwhatonce
werenumeroustribesyetevennowitissupposedthattheirnumberwithinthelimitsof

16

thecolonyofNewSouthWalescannotbelessthan10,000;anindicationofwhatmust
oncehavebeenthepopulation,andwhatthedestruction."
ButwhyIwouldaskiftheAboriginesbedeemedtoallintentsandpurposestobeBritish
subjectsandamenabletoBritishlawsasitisnowcontendedthattheyare;Whyhave
nottheMagistracy?aye!andwhynottheExecutivedirectedtheMagistracyifnegligent
intheirduty,toputforththeprotectingarmoflegalauthoritytosavethesewretched
beingsfromthesecrimesthecrimesofinfanticideanddrunkennesstosavethem
fromthemselves,andfromtheeffectsoftheinnoculationofEuropeanvice?The
settlementofthisdistrictofPortPhillip,tookplaceunderthecircumstancesdetailedina
veryabledespatchofGovernorSirRichardBourkeonthe10thofOctober1835,tothe
RightHon.LordGlenelg,thenSecretaryofState,whichwithotherdocumentsrelativeto
anillegalattemptoftheMr.Batmanwhohasbeenmentioned,andhiscoadventurers,to
treatwiththechiefsofthenativetribesforthepurchaseofnolessthan600,000acresof
landintheimmediatevicinityofthistown,inconsiderationofafewblankets,knives,
andtomahawks,foursuitsofclothes,fiftypoundsofflour,andanannualtributeofsome
blankets,knives,tomahawks,scissors,lookingglasses,slopclothing,andtwotonsof
flour."Yes,suchwasproposedastheliberalconsiderationfor600,000acresofland,an
attemptedbargainsurpassedonlybysomemorerecentproceedingsofasomewhat
similardescriptioninNewZealand.
ThewholeofthesedocumentsareprintedandmaybeseenintheappendixtotheReport
oftheParliamentaryCommitteeonthedisposalofwastelandsintheBritishColonies
datedthe1stofAugust,1836.Thisschemewashappilyfrustrated.Itistoberegretted,
however,thatpreviouslytothesettlementofPortPhillipbytheGovernmentnotreaty
wasmadewiththeAboriginesnotermsdefinedfortheirinternalgovernment,
civilization,andprotection.SirRichardBourkeindeedwelldeservedtheglowingeulogy
forwhathehasdone,thoughIcannotbutlamentthatwithregardtotheAborigineshe
didnotdomore,intheaddresstohimfromtheinhabitantsofthecolonyofNewSouth
Wales,whenonhisreturntoEurope,(publishedintheGovernmentGazetteofNew
SouthWales,of13thDecember,1837;)italludestoPortPhillipinthefollowingterms,
"Webegleave,sir,toacknowledge,thattoyourpromptitudeanddecision,wearemainly
indebtedforhavingsecuredtoNewSouthWalesthenobledomain,millionsoffertile
acres,whichencompassthewatersofPortPhillip.Impartialhistorywillyetrecordwith
whatvigilanceyouwatchedoverthose,whounderthepretenceoffictitioussalesand
artfulrepresentations,endeavoured,ontermsinjurioustotherightsandinterestsofthe
colony,tomakeamonopolyofthosegreenandboundlessplains,whichatnodistant
periodaredestinedtobecoveredwithourmultitudinousflocksandherds."The
immigrantnowjourneystothespotthusfreedfromthetrammelsofthesetainted
transactions,like'neasonhisapproachtoCarthage
"Miraturportas,strepitumqueetstrataviarum,
Instantardenteshomines;parsduceremuros,
Moliriquearcem,etmanibussubvolveresaxa:
Parsaptarelocumtecto,etconcluderesulco,

17

HcPortusaliieffodiunt;hcaltatheatris
Fundamentalocantalii,immanesquecolumnas
Rupibusexcidunt,scenisdecoraaltafuturis."
Butthoughthecitymayspringupandflourish;thoughthesmokeisseentocurlfrom
manyadomestichearth;whereisthesacredspirepointingtoHeaven,andtellingthe
distanttraveller,thatheisapproachingtheabodeofChristians,aswellasofcivilized
men?ofChristiansmindfuloftheirdutytothehelplessracewhosepossessionsthey
haveusurped.Accordingtothecommissionwherebythiscolonyisgoverned,the
SovereigntyoftheCrownisassertedoverthewholeoftheterritorycomprisedwithinthe
limitsitdefineslimitsalwaysincludingalargeportionoftheNorthernIslandofNew
Zealand;thatpartinfactbetweenwhichandNewSouthWalesanyintercourseexisted
limitswhichbyaCommissionofsolateadateasthe15thofJune,1840,werefurther
extendedsoastocomprisethatgroupofislandsinthePacificcommonlycalledNew
Zealand.TheredoesnotappeartobeanyspecificrecognitioninthisCommissionofthe
claimsoftheaborigines,eitherasthesovereignsorproprietorsofthesoil;althoughitis
intherecollectionofmanylivingmenthateverypartofthisterritorywastheundisputed
propertyoftheaborigines.
WhetherthesovereigntythusassertedwithinthelimitsdefinedbytheCommissionof
HisExcellencytheGovernorlegallyexcludestheaborigines,accordingtothelawof
nations,asacknowledgedandacteduponbytheBritishGovernment,fromtherightful
sovereigntyandoccupancyofareasonableportionofthesoil,anddestroystheir
existenceasselfgoverningcommunities,soentirelyastoplacethem,withregardtothe
prevalenceofourlawamongthemselves,intheunqualifiedconditionofBritishsubjects;
orwhetherithasmerelyreducedthemtothestateofdependentallies,stillretainingtheir
ownlawsandusages,subjectonlytosuchrestraintsandqualifiedcontrolasthesafetyof
thecolonistsandtheprotectionoftheaboriginesrequired,(subjecttothatrightofpre
emptionoftheirlands,whichisundoubted)isthepointuponwhichthepresentquestion
mainlyrests.Muchwilldependonthemannerinwhichthiscolonyisconsideredtohave
beenacquired,andthisbringsmeinthesecondplacetoadverttothelawofnationsas
acknowledgedbytheBritishGovernment,withregardtoColonialpossessions.Colonies,
saysMr.Clark,inhissummaryoftheColonialLaw,andstatedatthebarbyMr.Barry,
areacquiredbyconquest;bycessionundertreaty;orbyoccupancy.
ByoccupancywhereanuninhabitedcountryisdiscoveredbyBritishsubjects,andis
uponsuchdiscoveryadoptedorrecognisedbytheBritishCrownaspartofits
possessions.Incaseacolonybeacquiredbyoccupancy,(headds)thelawofEngland
theninbeing,isimmediatelyandipsofactoinforceinthenewsettlement.Hefurther
states,NewSouthWalesandVanDiemen'sLand,wereacquiredbydiscoveryorsimple
occupation.NewSouthWaleswasnothoweverunoccupied,aswehaveseen,atthetime
itwastakenpossessionofbythecolonists,for"abodyoftheaboriginesappearedonthe
shore,armedwithspears,whichtheythrewdownassoonastheyfoundthestrangershad
nohostileintention."Thisbeingthecase,itdoesnotappeartherewasanyconquest,and

18

itisadmittedtherehashithertobeennocessionundertreaty.Protectorsindeedhave
recentlybeenappointedandcertainlandssetapartbyorderofGovernmentwithinthis
district,forthelocationoftheaborigines;butnomore.
Thiscolonythenstandsonadifferentfootingfromsomeothersforitwasneitheran
unoccupiedplace,norwasitobtainedbyrightofconquestanddrivingoutthenatives,
norbytreaties.Indeed,asM.Vattelveryjustlysays,"whoeveragreesthatrobberyisa
crime,andthatwearenotallowedtotakeforciblepossessionofourneighbour's
property,willacknowledgewithoutanyotherproof,thatnonationhasarighttoexpel
anotherpeoplefromthecountrytheyinhabitinordertosettleinitherself."Butina
precedingpagethesameauthordeclares,inthepassagequotedbythelearnedCrown
Prosecutor,"thatthosewhopursueanerraticlife,andlivebyhuntingratherthan
cultivatetheirlands,usurpmoreextensiveterritoriesthanwithareasonableshareof
labourtheywouldhaveoccasionfor,andhave,therefore,noreasontocomplainifother
nations,moreindustrious,andtoocloselyconfinedcometotakepossessionofapartof
thoselands.
Thus,thoughtheconquestofthecivilisedempiresofPeruandMexicowasanotorious
usurpationtheestablishmentofmanycoloniesonthecontinentofNorthAmerica,might,
ontheirconfiningthemselveswithinjustbounds,beextremelylawful.Thepeopleof
thoseextensivetractsratherrangedthrough,thaninhabitedthem."And,again,hesays,
aswasquotedbythecounselonbothsidesatthebar,"Itisaskedifanationmaylawfully
takepossessionofapartofavastcountryinwhichtherearenonebuterraticnations
whosescantypopulationisincapableofoccupyingthewhole?Wehavealready
observed,inestablishingtheobligationtocultivatetheearth,thatthosenationscannot
exclusivelyappropriatetothemselvesmorelandthantheyhaveoccasionfor,ormore
thantheyareabletosettleandcultivate.
Theirremovingtheirhabitationsthroughtheseimmenseregionscannotbeaccountedtrue
andlegalpossession;andthepeopleofEurope,toocloselypentupathome,findingland
ofwhichsavagesstoodinnoparticularneed,andofwhichtheymadenoactualand
constantuse,werelawfullyentitledtotakepossessionofit,andsettleitwithcolonies.
Theearth,aswehavealreadysaid,belongstomankindingeneral,andwasdesignedto
furnishthemwithsubsistence:ifeachnationhadfromthebeginningresolvedto
appropriatetoitselfavastcountry,thatthepeoplemightliveonlybyhuntingandfishing
andwildfruits,ourglobewouldnotbesufficienttomaintainatenthpartofitspresent
inhabitants.
Wedonot,therefore,deviatefromtheviewsofnatureinconfiningtheIndianswithin
narrowerlimits."M.Vattelproceeds,butthishasnotbeenquotedatthebar:"However,
wecannothelppraisingthemoderationoftheEnglishPuritanswhosettledinNew
England;who,notwithstandingtheirbeingfurnishedwithacharterfromtheirSovereign,
purchasedoftheIndiansthelandofwhichtheyintendedtotakepossession.This

19

laudableexamplewasfollowedbyWilliamPennandthecolonyofQuakers,whichhe
conductedtoPennsylvania."Itwas,then,upontheaboveprinciple,Ithink,andnotby
mereoccupancyofadesertspot,byconquest,orbycession,thatthiscolonywas
acquired,thoughthegoodexampleoftheEnglishPuritansandofWm.Pennhashitherto
beenneglected.Theformer,in1640,beingdesirousofplantingchurches"afteraGodly
sort,"andtotrafficwiththeIndiansalongtheDelawareBay,madeapurchaseofsoilfor
30l.sterlingfromtheIndians,"andbasedtheirclaimsontheiractualpurchasefromthe
Indiansovereigns,ofwhomtheyallegedtheyacquiredtheirtitles."
WithregardtoPenn,Fishbourne,inhisnarrative,says,"thefirstandprincipalcareofthe
proprietor(Penn)wastopromotepeacewithall,accordinglyheestablishedafriendly
correspondencebywayoftreatywiththeIndians,atleasttwiceayear,andstrictly
enjoinedtheinhabitantsandsurveyorsnottosettleanylandtowhichtheIndianshad
claim,untilhehadfirst,athisowncost,satisfiedandpaidthemforthesame."Here,
then,wefindtheIndianstreatedasSovereignsofthesoilbythePuritans,andtreaties
enteredintowiththembythecharteredgovernor,Penn.Penn'srightasrepresentinghis
Sovereign,wasdiscoverycoupledwithpossession;andyet,havingthesovereigntyby
virtueoftheroyalcharter,theIndianswerenotreducedtosubjects,buttreatieswere
madewiththemwherebytheybecamedependentstates,andplacedthemselvesunderhis
protection."Astate,"saysM.Vattell,"thathasputherselfundertheprotectionofanother
hasnotonthataccountforfeitedhercharacterofsovereignty;"andthiswasthecasewith
theIndiantribes.Astate,Ithink,maybeconsideredundertheabovecircumstancesas
placingitselfundertheprotectionofthemorepowerfulcolonists,althoughnospecific
treatyhasbeenmade;andthepassagesfromKent'sCommentariesthatIshallcite
hereafter,will,inmyopinion,warrantthisinference.But,itmaybesaid,thatifanation
thatisprotected,orhasplaceditselfunderacertainstateofsubjection,doesnotresistthe
encroachmentsofthesuperiorpowerifitmakesnooppositiontothemifitpreserves
aprofoundsilencewhenitmayandoughttospeakitspatientacquiescencebecomes,in
lengthoftime,atacitconsentthatlegitimatestherightoftheusurper.
Itmustbeobserved,however,thatsilence,inordertoshowconsent,oughttobe
voluntary.Iftheinferiornationproves,orifitbeevidentfromitspositionand
circumstances,thatviolenceandfear,orignorance,preventeditsgivingtestimoniesof
opposition,nothingcanbeconcludedfromitssilencewhichthengivesnorighttothe
usurper.Therefore,ifthiscolonywereacquiredbyoccupyingsuchlandsaswere
uncultivatedandunoccupiedbythenatives,andwithinthelimitsofthesovereignty
assertedunderthecommission,theaborigineswouldhaveremainedunconqueredand
free,butdependenttribes,dependentonthecolonistsastheirsuperiorsforprotection;
theirrightsasadistinctpeoplecannot,fromtheirpeculiarsituation,beconsideredto
havebeentacitlysurrendered.Butthefrequentconflictsthathaveoccurredbetweenthe
colonistsandtheAborigineswithinthelimitsofthecolonyofNewSouthWales,make
it,Ithink,sufficientlymanifestthattheAboriginaltribesareneitheraconqueredpeople,
norhavetacitlyacquiescedinthesupremacyofthesettlers.

20

TherightsoftheAboriginesofthisdistrictifthetestimonywhichhasbeenadducedasto
thecivilizationandcapacitybetrue,cannot,Ishouldimagine,differfromthoseofother
Aboriginaltribeswithinthelimitsofthesamegovernment.WefindintheGovernment
GazetteofNewSouthWales,ofJuly8,1840,aProclamationbyCaptainHobson,the
LieutenantGovernorofNewZealand,recitingthatatreatyhadbeenmadeandentered
intobyhimandcertainchiefsofthenorthernisland,(thegreaterpartofwhichitwillbe
rememberedhasalwaysbeenwithinthelimitsdefinedinthecommissionunderwhich
thiscolonyisgoverned),declaringthatbyvirtueofsuchtreaty,thefullsovereigntyofthe
northernislandofNewZealandvestsinHerMajestyQueenVictoriaforever,aclearand
distinctrecognitionofthesechiefsasaseparateandindependentpeople.
Now,ifthiscessionwereaccordingtogeneralandestablishedprinciplesofnationallaw,
whatisthere,Iwouldask,topreventHisHonortheSuperintendentofthisdistrict
enteringintoasimilartreatywiththechiefsoftheaboriginesofthisdistrict,andthus
acknowledgingthemtobeasdistinctapeopleastheNewZealanders?Ifullyagreewith
HisExcellencytheGovernor,SirGeo.Gipps,thatMr.Busby'sdeclarationof
independenceoftheNewZealanders,"wasasillyaswellasunauthorisedact,"wherefore
noargumentinfavorofthetreatyenteredintowiththembyGovernorHobson,canbe
builtonthatground;infactIamquiteatalosstodiscoverhowtheaboriginesofNew
ZealandcanbeconsideredinadifferentlighttothoseofAustraliaFelix.
ButInowcometowhat,perhaps,ishigherandmoreconclusiveauthorityforconsidering
theaboriginesasadistinctthoughdependentpeople,andentitledtoberegardedasself
governingcommunities.Onthe9thofJuly,1840,HisExcellencyGovernorSirGeorge
Gipps,inhisspeechinthelegislativecouncilofthiscolony,(aspeechwhichwouldhave
donehonourtoanysenate,)ontheBillrespectingclaimstograntsoflandinNew
Zealand,made,amongother,thefollowingquotationsinsupportofhisargument,
quotationswhichIknowtobecorrect.ThefirstpassagesreadbyHisExcellencywere
extractsfromStorey'sCommentariesontheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,c.1,sec.6,
7,and8;butthe7thsectionissufficientformypresentpurposeitisasfollows:"It
maybeaskedwhatwastheeffectofthisprincipleofdiscoverywithregardtothenatives
themselves.IntheviewoftheEuropeans,itcreatedapeculiarrelationbetween
themselvesandtheaboriginalinhabitants.
Thelatterwereadmittedtopossessapresentrightofoccupancy,oruseofthesoil,which
wassubordinatetotheultimatedominionofthediscoverer.Theywereadmittedtobe
rightfuloccupantsofthesoilwithalegalandjustclaimtoretainpossessionofit;andto
useitaccordingtotheirowndiscretion.Inacertainsensetheywerepermittedtoexercise
rightsofsovereigntyoverit.Theymightsellortransferittothesovereignwho
discoveredit,buttheyweredeniedtheauthoritytodisposeofittoanyotherperson;and
untilsuchasaleortransfertheyweregenerallypermittedtooccupyitassovereignsde
facto."HisExcellencythenreadseveralextractsfromKent'scommentariesonthe
Americanlaw,andamongothersthefollowingpassage,apassagealsoquotedbycounsel
onbehalfoftheprisonerinhisargumentsinthiscase."TheIndiantribesplaced

21

themselvesundertheprotectionofthewhites,andtheywerecherishedasdependent
allies."
Thisdoesnotappeartohavebeeninconsequenceofanyexpresstreaty;"butsubjectto
suchrestraintsandqualifiedcontrolintheirnationalcapacity,aswasconsideredbythe
whitestobeindispensabletotheirownsafety,andrequisitetodischargethedutyof
protection."Andagain,"They(theNewEnglandPuritans)alwaysnegotiatedwiththe
Indiannationsasdistinctandindependentpersons;andneithertherightofpreemption,
whichwasuniformlyclaimedandexercised,northestateofthedependenceandpupilage
underwhichtheIndiantribeswithintheirterritoriallimitswerenecessarilyplaced,were
carriedsofarastodestroytheexistenceoftheIndiansasselfgovernedcommunities."
HisExcellencyalsoreadapassagefromRobertson'sHistoryofAmerica,withregardto
theinternalregulationsoftheIndians,ofwhichthefollowingisanextract:(thispassage
hasalsobeenurgedatthebartoshowthattheCourtoughtnottoentertainjurisdiction.
"Thefirststeptowardsestablishingapublicjurisdictionhasnotbeentakeninthoserude
societies.
Therightofrevengeisleftinprivatehands.Ifviolenceiscommittedorbloodisshedthe
communitydoesnotassumethepowereitherofinflictingormoderatingthepunishment.
Itbelongstothefamilyandfriendsofthepersoninjuredorslain,toavengethewrong,or
toacceptthereparationofferedbytheaggressor."Alawyeratonceperceivesthe
similarityofthisrudecustomtotheappealsofmurderwhichwithinmyrecollection
formedpartoftheEnglishcode.IbelievethepassagessoaptlyquotedbyHisExcellency
theGovernortobeequallyapplicabletotheaboriginesthroughoutthecolonyastothose
ofNewZealand.TheAmericancolonieswereacquiredpreciselyinthesamemanneras
thishasbeen,bydiscoveryandoccupancyofsuchlandsaswerenotintheactual
occupationofthenatives.Someofthosecoloniesalsowerereceptaclesforconvicted
offenders.Ifitbeurged,notwithstandingwhatIhavestated,thatthisisaconquered
colony,IsayandsomostcertainlywasJamaica,acolonyinwhich,asinthis,theEnglish
lawprevails,andyetwefindthatintheyear1738,atreatywasconcludedunderthe
sanctionofthecrown,notwiththeaboriginesindeed,butwithanequallyrudeand
untutoredrace,theMaroonsofTrelawneyTown,onthe1stMarchinthatyear;bythe
eightharticleitisstipulated"thatifanywhitemanshalldoanymannerofinjurytoCapt.
Cudjoe,hissuccessors,oranyofhispeople,theyshallapplytoanycommandingofficer,
ormagistrateintheneighbourhoodforjustice;andincaseCaptainCudjoe,oranyofhis
peopleshalldoanyinjurytoanywhiteperson,heshallsubmithimself,ordeliverupsuch
offenderstojustice."Andbythe12tharticle,"ThatCapt.Cudjoeduringhislifetime,
andtheCaptainssucceedinghim,shallhavefullpowertoinflictanypunishmentthey
thinkproperontheirmen,deathonlyexcepted,inwhichcaseiftheCaptainthinksthey
deservedeath,heshallbeobligedtobringthembeforeanyJusticeofthePeace,who
shallorderproceedingsontheirtrialequaltothoseofotherfreenegroes."
Aprettystrongacknowledgementofarudeanddependentcommunitybeingpermittedto
governitselfbyitsownlawsinaBritishcolony.TheislandofSt.Vincent,ofwhichsays
Edwards,theCharibsweretherightfulpossessors,wasbythe9tharticleofthepeaceof

22

Paris,10thFeb.1763,cededbytheFrenchinfullandperpetualsovereigntytoGreat
Britain,"theCharibsnotoncebeingmentionedinthewholetransactionasifnosuch
peopleexisted."TheCharibsindeeduniformlyandabsolutelydeniedanyrightinanyof
theSovereignsofEuropetotheirallegiance.Theywerearudeandsavageracecertainly
norgreatlysuperior,fromMr.Edwards'accountofthem,totheaboriginesasdescribed
byMr.BatmaninAustraliaFelix.NotwithstandingthecessionoftheIslandtotheBritish
Crowninfullsovereignty,Governmentdeemeditexpedienttoenterintoatreatyof
peaceandfriendshipwiththem,concludedonthe17thofFebruary,1773,bythe3rd
articleofwhichtheystipulate,"tosubmitthemselvestothelawsandobedienceofHis
MajestysGovernment,andtheGovernorshallhavepowertoenactfurtherregulationsfor
thepublicadvantageasshallbeconvenient,(thisarticleonlyrespectstheirtransactions
withH.M.'ssubjects,notbeingIndians,theirintercourseandcustomswitheachotherin
thequartersallottedtothemnotbeingaffectedbyit)andallnewregulationsareto
receiveH.M.'sGovernor'sapprobationbeforecarriedintoexecution."
MoreconvincingproofsthanthesecasesinJamaicaandSt.Vincentoftherecognitionof
theselfgovernment,asdependentallies,ofarudepeoplewithintheBritishdominionsin
acolonywhereEnglishlawprevailscannotIthinkbefound,oronethatmoreclearly
refutestheargumentofthelearnedCrownProsecutor,thatallpersonsinaBritishcolony
aresubjecttotheBritishlaw.WhythenIwouldaskifthisprinciplehasbeen
acknowledgedinthiscolonywithregardtotheAboriginesofNewZealandinJamaica
withrespecttotheMaroonsinSt.VincentwithreferencetotheCharibs,andfully
recognisedandacteduponasnationallawinAmerica.
Whyisitnottobeacteduponhere?OurEastIndianpossessions,whatevertheymay
havebeenoriginally,arecertainlynowclaimedbyusbyconquest;yetthere,even,after
conquest,theunchristianpracticeofSutteesandthebarbarousritesofJughernautwere
permittedtoprevail:theBritishLegislature,however,has,bytheStat.3&4,WM.IV.,
cap.85,expresslygiven"theGovernorGeneralinCouncilpowertorepealoralterany
lawsorregulationsthenorthereaftertobeinforceinthoseterritories,andtomakelaws
forallpersons,BritishorNative,foreignersorothers,andforallcourtsofjustice,
whetherestablishedbyH.M.'scharterorotherwise."Thereisnoexpresslaw,thatIam
awareof,thatmakestheAboriginessubjecttoourcolonialcode:thestat.9,Geo.IV.,
cap.83,sec.24,declaresthatthelawsofEnglandshallbeappliedintheadministration
ofjusticesofarascircumstanceswilladmit;butthis,Ithink,isverydifferentfrom
declaringthattheAboriginesshall,asamongthemselves,beamenabletoBritishlaw.
TheonlyactsoflegislationwithregardtotheAborigines,thatIremember,arethelocal
ordinancestopreventtheirbeingsuppliedwithspirits,andtopreventthembearing
firearms;butithasneverbeenattemptedtodeprivethemoftheirweapons.Theselaws
areperfectlyconsistent,Ithink,withthecharacteroftheAborigines,asdependentallies,
andnecessaryfortheprotectionanddueregulationofintercoursebetweentheAborigines
andcolonists.
AftertheconquestofIrelandbyHenryII.,thelawsofEnglandwerereceivedandsworn
tobytheIrishnation,assembledattheCouncilofLismore.ButtheIrishstilladheringto

23

theiroldBrehonlaw,afterrepeatedinjunctions,whichtheydisregarded,thattheyshould
begovernedbythelawofEngland,theBrehonlawwasformallyabolishedbyanActof
IrishParliamentinthe40thyearofEdwardIII.Hadanylegislativeenactmentabolished
thelawsandcustomsoftheaborigines,ordeclaredthattheyshouldbegovernedbythe
lawofthecolonythenthispointcouldneverhavearisen.
Thisisnotaquestionofforeignersinacountrywherethesovereignhastheentiresway.
Insuchacasetherecanbenodoubtthattheforeignersareamenabletothelawsofthe
placetheycometo.ButevenwithregardtoforeignersitissaidbyM.Vattel,tobethe
safestcoursenottopermitthoseforeignerstoresidetogetherinthesamepartofthe
country,theretokeepuptheformofaseparatenation.Inthisinstancehoweverthe
colonistsandnottheaboriginesaretheforeigners;theformerareexotics,thelatter
indigenous,thelatterthenativesovereignsofthesoil,theformeruninvitedintruders.It
seemsthenthatalthoughinfanticideprevails,andscenesofdrunkennessaredaily
witnessedamongtheunfortunateaboriginesinourstreets,thatnoattempthashitherto
beenmade,tomyknowledgeatleast,torepressthesecrimesbytheinterpositionofour
Englishorcoloniallaw.
Tograspthesubjectwithsufficientstrength,Ihavebeeninducedtonarrateatsome
length,thecircumstancesunderwhichthiscolonywasacquiredandthisdistrictsettled;
tostatethelawofnationsasappliednotonlyinwhatwasBritishAmerica,butinNew
Zealandasformingapartofthiscolony,andtoalludetothetreatiesmadewiththe
MaroonsinJamaica,andtheCharibsinSt.Vincent,(theoneacolonyobtainedby
conquestinitsstrictestsense,andtheotheracquiredbythefullandunconditional
cessionofaForeignState,)inbothofwhichcoloniesthelawofEngland,sofarasitcan
advantageouslybeapplied,isrecognisedandprevails.NorhaveIomittedtoglanceatthe
permissivecountenanceofthelawsandcustomsofthenativesofHindostan,inthat
portionofitwhichhasbeenconqueredandsubjectedtoBritishrule;thoughsuch
customsincludedthecruelpracticeofSuttees,andthedisgustingheathenandbarbarous
ritesofJughernaut.IrepeatthatIamnotawareofanyexpressenactmentortreaty
subjectingtheAboriginesofthiscolonytotheEnglishcoloniallaw,andIhaveshown
thattheAboriginescannotbeconsideredasForeignersinaKingdomwhichistheirown.
Fromthesepremisesrapidlyindeedcollected,Iamatpresentstronglyledtoinferthatthe
Aboriginesmustbeconsideredanddealtwith,untilsomefurtherprovisionbemade,as
distinct,thoughdependenttribesgovernedamongthemselvesbytheirownrudelawsand
customs.Ifthisbeso,Istronglydoubttheproprietyofmyassumingtheexerciseof
jurisdictioninthecasebeforeme.
Butitistoomomentousaquestiontobethushastilydecided,itdemandsanditmust
receivemuchmoreanxiousconsideration,unlessthecounseloneachsidegoonwiththis
case,ontheexpressunderstandingthatneithertheprisonernortheCourtconsiderthe
questionwaivedbyanysubsequentproceeding,andthereservationofallsuchbenefitto
theprisonerashewouldhavereceivedincaseIhadnowgivenadefinitedecision.Imust
forthepresentadjournthismatterforfuturejudgment,reservingtomyselfasIdotothe

24

fullestextenttherightsoalterorabandonmypresentimpression,shouldIbehereafter
convincedthatitisinanywiseerroneous.ButthoughIpause,Itrustbydoingso,Ishall
notsubjecttheBritishnametothereproachcastontheSpaniardsbythePeruvianRolla.
"Ipause,indeed,inunfeignedamity,thatafflictionmaynotmournmyprogress."Idesire
toseethestateoftheAboriginesofAustraliaimproved,Idesiretoseethemfreedfrom
theyokeoferror;toseethedutiesofhumanityamplyandpracticallyfulfilled;toseeall
dueprotectionextendedtothisunhappyracetheprotectionoftheirrightsbylaws
adaptedtotheircapacityandsuitedtotheirwantstheprotectionofallequalandall
powerfuljustice.
Itwasthenagreedthattheprisonershouldpleadtotheinformationandtakehistrial,
subjecthowevertotheexpressreservationoftherightofjurisdiction,whichHisHonor
wouldtakefurthertimetoconsider.
*SeealsoBKercher,"RecognitionofIndigenousLegalAutonomyinNineteenth
CenturyNewSouthWales"(1997)4(13)ILB7.
[1]BruceKercherisaProfessorofLawatMacquarieUniversity.
[2]Australian,23May1827,reportedatwww.law.mq.edu.au/~bruce.
[3]Dowling,ProceedingsoftheSupremeCourt,Vol.22,ArchivesOfficeofNewSouth
Wales,2/3205,p.98.
[4]SeealsoSydneyGazette,23April1829onearlierproceedings.
[5]SydneyGazette,14May1836;SydneyHerald,16May1836;Australian,17May
1836;Dowling,ProceedingsoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,Vol.122(2),
ArchivesOfficeofNewSouthWales,2/3306pp.12542.
[6]NotesonnewspaperaccountstakenfromDavidPhilips,"Mr.JusticeWillisandthe
BonjonCase,MelbourneSept.1841",unpublishedpaper,MelbourneUniversity,July
1998.
[7]PortPhillipPatriot,20September1841,p.5.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Philips,p.6.
[10]CorrespondenceinBritishParliamentaryPapers,Vol8,pp.1436.SeealsoS
Davies,"Aborigines,MurderandtheCriminalLawinEarlyPortPhillip,18411851"
(1987)22HistoricalStudies313;BBridges,"TheExtensionofEnglishLawtothe
AboriginesforOffencesCommittedInterSe,18291842"(1973)59JournaloftheRoyal
AustralianHistoricalSociety264;HReynolds,AboriginalSovereignty:ThreeNations,
OneAustralia?,AllenandUnwin,Sydney,pp.701.
[11]SeeWikPeoplesvStateofQueensland(1996)187CLR1at181;2(1)AILR35,
note667(perGummowJ),andRvWedge[1976]1NSWLR581,at586(perRathJ).

25