In August, 1832, the Secretary of State answered it from documents in the Colonial Office. In August, also, Mr. Bannister applied at the Council Office to see the said documents, in order to be prepared with his proofs in the case, and in order to go to a hearing of it with knowledge of what had been alleged against him. He was informed at the Council Office, that a memorial must be presented to the Lords of the Council for leave to inspect the documents, and he presented such memorial accordingly. He went, day after day, to the Council Office on the matter, and on the last day of August, 1832, he was informed there, that the lords and proper officer were out of town, that much time would be required for examining the said documents, and that nothing could be done in the case for several months. Mr. Bannister waited several months, expecting leave to see the documents to be granted, and at length he presented another memorial to the Lords of the Council, stating, that he had evidence to produce in the case. In 1833, his agent was told, that so early as the 15th day of September, 1832, a letter was written to inform him, that there was nothing in the petition to induce the lords to recommend His Majesty to revoke his former decisions; and the agent was also told, that with the minute of this report on the conncil books, access could not be allowed to the documents. Mr. Bannister then presented a memorial to the Lords of the Council, stating, that he had not received such letter of the 15th day of September, 1832, and that their lordships could not justly report upon the said petition, without hearing him, and that he could not go to a hearing safely, without evidence, nor without seeing the documents produced against him, and praying that the error made by their lordships on the 15th day of September, 1832, should be cor. rected. But he was unable to get attention paid to the said memorial; on the contrary, his agent was told at the Council Office, that the case was considered to be settled. In vain has Mr. Bannister endeavoured to get the injustice done on this occasion rectified, and he has reason to believe, that the Council was as much abused on this occasion as he was himself wronged. The President of the Council, in 1832, the Marquis of Lansdowne, has stated to Mr. Bannister, and expressly authorized him, "to make any use he might think proper of the communication," that he was not heard at the Privy Council on this occasion; which, to the best of his lordship's recollection, "arose from this case not having been considered as one of those which the Privy Council was justified, in conformity to its usual practice, to come to any decision upon, not being in the nature of a judicial appeal, without its being recommended to their consideration by the Colonial Department." And yet a judgment is asserted to have been delivered against Mr. Bannister in September, 1832, although he had been told at the office that nothing could be done in the case for many months. The probability clearly is, that the Marquis of Lansdowne's recollection is not in fault. If it be probable that the Privy Council was abused in this case, it is quite certain, that the House of Commons was equally abused, and the present Lord Monteagle most unworthily made an instrument in the misrepresentation of the facts. The petition, in 1834, stated the case somewhat as set forth in the text, aud prayed, "that the House would intervene with the King, in order that the Privy Council might be directed to examine the case, and hear petitioner, as justice required." But Lord Monteagle stated the matter thus:-Mr. Secretary Rice, "The case of this gentleman may be stated in two words. He voluntarily resigned his office; another gentleman was appointed to it, and then, Mr. B., repenting of the step he had taken, applied by petition to the Privy Council, to be restored. This case was fully enquired into, and it being found that Mr. B. had voluntarily resigned his situation, the Privy Council was of opinion that he had no claim to be restored. Failing in his petition to the Privy Council, Mr. B. now seeks for the interference of the House. I think the House will agree with me that the case is one in which it can take no steps."— Mirror of Parliament, June 30, 1834-p. 3106. This single case presents an accumulation of injustice. Under one Secretary of State, Sir G. Murray, it was declared that "Mr. Bannister had conducted himself with so much indiscretion in his office, as would have rendered his removal necessary;" and the imputation was repeated again and again, in 1828, to support the refusal of the money promised to be paid. Under another Secretary the imputation was thus expressed :-"Lord Goderich can well understand," said Lord Howick, in 1831, "that you should feel acutely what you conceive to be an undeserved censure on your conduct; and he would consider it to be his duty to decline no investigation, even though it should be attended with much labour and inconvenience to himself, having for its object to relieve an individual from an unmerited reproach incurred in the course of his public service. "With respect to yourself, however, Lord Goderich conceives that this necessity for an investigation does not exist, as not the slightest imputation has been cast upon your honour and integrity, nor any complaint preferred from any quarter, of want of zeal in the discharge of your duties. "Your recall, had it taken place, would only have been decided upon in order to relieve the colonial government from the inconvenience which seems to have resulted from the erroneous view which you took of your duties." Accordingly, Lord Goderich did not investigate the case, and when, in 1832, his lordship assented to its reference to the Privy Council, the matter went off as above stated. Thus, such a degree of indiscretion, and such an erroneous view of the duties of his office, have been imputed upon Mr. Bannister, as to justify his removal from a law-office in New South Wales, -in other words, not only to justify "stealing the trash, his purse, but to make him poor indeed, by robbing him of his good name." Was he not then entitled to be heard, when he insisted that the facts of the case were not known in the Colonial Office? It is no light thing to impute indiscretion to a public officer, as Lord Campbell showed admirably in the case of the Directors of the East India Company, with a special military illustration for the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, His Grace the Duke of Wellington. "Suppose," said Lord Campbell, "an officer in the army was accused, in general orders, of an act of the grossest indiscretion, would he not immediately demand inquiry? It would be a strong reflection upon his character as an officer, and he would not rest satisfied until he was cleared from the imputation."_ (House of Lords, 7th May, 1844.) Impressed with such sentiments, and confident that in a most laborious office he discharged all his duties well, Mr. Bannister rightly demands the money due to him, and wisely insists upon having the credit restored which ought never to have been impeached. In leaving England for a remote colony, he gained a title, which Lord John Russell, as above stated, expressly declared, in 1839, to have been, for half a century, permanent, on good behaviour; and the spirit of the constitution carries that permanent title many centuries beyond. In this case, the only hope of justice being done, arises from the prospect, that the time is coming when reason shall prevail, and lead the ministers who refused to hear this case, viz., Sir G. Murray, the Earl of Ripon, Lord Monteagle, Lord Glenelg, the Marquis of Normanby, Lord John Russell, and Lord Stanley, and their colleagues and successors, to wiser and more just conclusions on the subject of their duty as to hearing complainants. Besides the money due to Mr. Bannister, he claims the fair recognition of his past good public services, and employment by the Crown; on both which points, knowledge of the truth would prompt the government to act justly. It so happens, that his experience long rendered him more familiar than most individuals with an important branch of colonial affairs-the relations of our colonists and traders with the aborigines. On this subject, which is full of urgent daily interest, Mr. Bannister has suggested some proceedings to the government, which are approved by all parties, and which Lord Stanley was disposed to think well of. The adoption of these suggestions would probably save thousands of lives, and millions of money. But the same sinister influence which has prevented justice being done to Mr. Bannister's claims for his past services, prevents, as is believed, his employment in carrying out what must be so beneficial, the Colonial Office being shut against him by the following letter, which is, perhaps, without a precedent in the correspondence of Downing Street. Downing Street, 25th January, 1844. SIR, I am directed by Lord Stanley to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, addressed to Mr. Hope, and to acquaint you in reply, that his lordship does not contemplate acting on the suggestions to which you refer, or availing himself of the offer of your services under this department. I have, &c., To S. Bannister, Esq. JAS. STEPHEN. The individual thus shown the door of the Colonial Office by Mr. Stephen, came to the public service with no recommendation but his own labours, and his conduct in his post was, it is repeated, without the shadow of just reproach. Before filling that post, he had been selected, in 1823, as a commissioner to carry out a reform he had himself suggested in the Indian department of Canada. The same individual has, during seventeen years, urged his claim to some employment by the Crown, on the ground of his proved fitness, and of his past good services. That these past services ought to be paid for, there is no doubt, and few will be disposed to deny, that the Secretaries of State for the Colonies ought to learn from a superior authority, such as the Privy Council, that his pretensions are consistent with the law of England, which enjoins exclusive respect to character in appointments for the service of the Crown. It is hoped that the following proofs Mr. Bannister has given of useful industry, will not be thought to be produced improperly :— 1819-Papers on the Reform of Free Grammar Schools. 1820-Plan for Encouraging Industry in the Indians of North America, (executed with some success). 1822-Defence of the Indians. 1823-Plan for the Reform of the Indian Department of Canada. 66 Sir Orlando Bridgeman's Judgments in the Common Pleas. 1827-Papers respecting the Discharge of the Duties of Attorney-General of New South Wales, in 1824 5-6. 1830 Humane Policy, or the Means to Civilize Uncivilized Tribes; with a Plan to Settle Natal in South Africa. 1833-Appel en faveur d'Alger. (Paris). Essay on the Civilization of the Hottentots. (Paris and Treves). Biography of Dr. Vanderkemp, and of the Indian Chief Brant. (Paris.) 1836-Evidence before the Aborigines Committee of the House of Commons, on a system to civilize uncivilized tribes. 66 Letter to Lord John Russell on Abolishing Transportation, and on 1838-British Colonization and Barbarous Tribes, or an Historical Development of a System to Civilize Uncivilized Tribes. 66 Memoir for the Settlement of Natal, presented to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, by the Cape-of-Good-Hope-Trade Society. 1840-Reports and Papers for the Aborigines Protection Society, on the Canadian Indians, the Australasians, &c.; for the British Association of Science, on New Zealand; and for the Colonial Society, on the Cape of Good Hope-all enforcing the principle, that the destruction of barbarous tribes by colonization may be prevented, and their civilization promoted by a wise and humane system; which system was explained in detail by measures proposed in these papers and works. 1830 1843 S 1840 1842 Articles in the Oriental Quarterly Review, on Eastern Africa; New The African Colonizer, a London newspaper, in which, before the progress of the Cape frontier system. It urged warmly the extreme importance of settling Natal, in order to save the lives of whites and blacks. It showed the means of improving Madagascar in connexion with Mauritius, Bourbon, &c. It also advocated a good plan of government for the British settlements in West Africa, and pressed for precautionary measures in the emigration from West Africa to the West Indies, and it contained papers upon the condition and prospects of other parts of Africa, with African biographies, and critical notices of books on Africa. 1843-Plan of the Cabot Library, to lay, in the knowledge of the past career of Britain, proper foundations for a more humane, and more prosperous future, upon and beyond sea. Suggestions for a Series of Cartoons upon Maritime and Colonial Subjects, from the earliest times, to familiarize the public with them. 1844-Hints of a plan for educating the people connected with the sea, so as best to qualify them to discharge the peculiar duties of a great maritime population at home and abroad,-drawn up in reference to the recommendations of the Shipwreck Committees. Part of the Cabot Library.—(Liverpool and Plymouth.) 1843 | Papers on a System of Peaceful and Civilizing Intercourse with the 1844 S Natives of India, New Zealand, Africa, and Oregon.-(Published and Read at Plymouth, Liverpool, and Windsor.) 1844--The Classical Sources of the History of the British Isles, being an Introduction to the Cabot Library, (preparing for early publication,) in one volume. |