NAVY BOARD to COLONIAL SECRETARY
Navy Office
30th January 1823
Sir, We transmit herewith for the information of Earl Bathurst, a copy of a letter addressed to us by Mr James Hall, late Surgeon and Superintendent of the Mary Ann Female convict ship dated, at Sydney 7th September 1822 (with copies of its inclosures) representing his detention in New South Wales by legal Proceedings instituted against him on account of two official letters which he has written in consequence of a complaint made to him against Dr Douglass, Superintendent of the female factory at Paramatta by a female convict who had been conveyed to that colony.
R. Wilmot Esq
JAMES HALL TO NAVY BOARD
Sydney, New South Wales
7th Sept 1822
Hon'ble Gentlemen'
I beg leave most respectfully to inform you that in consequence of my having done an act of duty becoming me as an officer and having zealously exerted myself to carry into effect the reformation of the Female convicts, agreeably to the spirit of the instructions given to me as Surgeon Superintendent of the Mary Ann, female Convict ship, by your Honourable board, I have incurred a most unaccountable system of persecution, and am now actually detained in the Colony to undergo a trial for an action for libel contained in two official letters calling on a Magistrate and Chaplain of the Colony to interfere officially, and investigate into the Conduct of Mr Henry Grattan Douglass, Colonial Assistant Surgeon, but commonly called Dr Douglass, who is a Magistrate and Superintendent of the Female Factory at Parramatta, against whom I preferred charges of criminality towards his convict servant, Ann Rumsby, who came to the Colony under my charge, and considered therefore that I was bound to listen to her grievance, and give her protection. I myself, Honourable Gentlemen, and Sir John Jamieson, who was with me when the woman ran from her master's house after me. I conceived it to be my duty as a public officer serving under Your Honourable Board and being on full pay to make the particulars of her complaint known in the most quiet and regular manner, to prevent if possible the exposure of very immoral Conduct, thence Gentlemen I wrote to the Reverend Samuel Marsden an official letter of which the enclosed is a copy, calling on him to investigate into the conduct of Dr Douglass as founded on the contents of the Memorandum to which I make an Affidavit before the Honourable Judge Advocate Wylde, which memorandum I herein enclose, containing the substance of the charges against her master, but, Honourable gentlemen, the period of that complaint being made known to me when I was called on to protect her, and the time I wrote the official Letter to Mr Marsden, certain changes occurred in the situation of the woman, and her master and she endeavoured to controvert the complaints she made to me, and to avoid an investigation, leaving me the painful task of insisting on an investigation, in order to prove the truths of the contents of the Memorandum and to prevent my character as an officer being injured by the depravity of a profligate woman who had imposed on me , and to expose the artful intrigue of Dr Douglass. When, Honourable Gentlemen, the parties saw that an investigation must be made by the magistrates, Dr Douglass assented to it, but on the day appointed he eluded it by setting off for Sydney, and taking the woman with him.
That step, Gentlemen, urged me to write a letter to His Excellency the Governor, of which the enclosed is a copy. The investigation I finally forced, to prevent the ruin of my character, for perjured convict witnesses were ready to turn truth into a lie; but yet sufficient light was obtained by means of the upright conduct of the Magistrates as to obtain a clear view of the whole affair, and to demonstrate the uprightness of my conduct. With much pride, Honourable Gentlemen, I beg leave now to request you will examine the enclosed copies of parts of the proceedings of the Bench of Magistrates which have since been approved by the Honourable Judges and other Magistrates, who revised the whole report and His Excellency the Governor verbally assured me of his esteem and approval of my public conduct. After this, Honourable Gentlemen, I was threatened with civil and criminal prosecutions, but considered the reports as false. I drew Bills on your Board for passage money £110, by the ship Shipley, for which ship I had been waiting three or four months. On the 4th Instant, I received notice from Mr Moore, solicitor, giving me notice of an action but yet nothing was done, the threat only existing. On this day, part of my baggage being on board, I was stopped at the Colonial Office for want of a clearance, and in the afternoon of this day, the Shipley being to sail tomorrow at daybreak, I was served with a writ and arrested, an action having been brought against me by direction of the Colonial Government (as is seen by the enclosed copy of a letter from the Colonial Secretary to W H Moore Esq, the solicitor) for libels contained in my two official letters before mentioned, on the character of Dr Douglass now called in the writ, Henry Grattan Douglass Esq, and the damages are laid at £5000!
Thus suddenly arrested just as I was embarking for England, and fondly anticipating the happiness of rejoining my family; and once more presenting myself to your notice and receiving from your Honourable Board fresh proofs of your approbation of my conduct, how can I describe my present anguished feelings in a letter that is formal and official.
I only crave of you, Honourable Gentlemen, to bestow on me as your obedient officer, that candour and liberality which have so long characterized the Navy Board, and not at least allow me and my family to be consigned to ruin, for having in my zeal for His Majesty's Service exposed myself to the most frightful Prosecutions under the most unparalleled persecutions. I have to request, Gentlemen, that you will be pleased to pay only such a portion of the Passage money that has been drawn on the Board as you may deem fitting. I have only been able to give you, Gentlemen, this short outline of the unfortunate situation in which I am placed; scarcely have I been able to find time to furnish you with this letter, being harassed by the effects of the awful delay of the writ, not withstanding directions, were given as is shewn by the enclosed letter to the Solicitor, so long ago as the 23rd August.
In conclusion I beg leave most respectfully, Honourable Gentlemen, to request you will do me justice and not allow me to be ruined by artful Botany Bay intrigues and perjury. I find it difficult to speak truth, and not use terms descriptive of truth, such Gentlemen, are the crimes now laid to my charge, which almost would tempt me to solicit you not to allow my words I have used in this letter be returned on me as Libels, were I not convinced that the shadow of suspicion only would be a libel on the Honourable Commissioners under whose orders I am proudly serving.
I have the honor to be Honourable Gentlemen,
Your most obedient, humble and persecuted servant JAMES HALL
(2nd) Surgeon and late Superintendent of The Mary Ann, Convict Ship
REPORT BY FRANCIS FORBES TO LORD BATHURST
Note by the Editor of the Historical Records of Australia
This extraordinary case is an example of the extreme and bitter actions that men would take who were involved in the faction fights in the colony. Henry Grattan Douglass was the intimate friend of Sir Thomas Brisbane [see p. 624] and it is probable that the party in opposition to the Governor were the promoters of this attack on him. James Hall was severely censured by the Colonial Office on his return to England for participating in a party fight and was for some time prevented from obtaining charge of another transport ship to New South Wales, although such objection was not raised to the charge of one to Tasmania. The action of the magistrates in sentencing Ann Rumsby to transportation to Port Macquarie for perjury was grossly illegal, as such a sentence could only be made by the court of the criminal jurisdiction. The following criticism of the case by Francis Forbes (afterwards Sir Francis and Chief Justice of the colony) is preserved in the record office. London:-
Following the receipt of the report by Sir Thomas Brisbane, Governor of New South Wales, the Colonial Secretary, Lord Bathurst asked Frances Forbes, ex Chief Justice of Newfoundland to give his views on the events surrounding the Ann Rumsby case.
REMARKS ON THE CASE OF ANN RUMSBY AND THE PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUENT THEREUPON.
Of the complaint and conduct of Mr Hall. In a memorandum drawn up by Hall and sworn to before the Judge Advocate he states as follows:
'At noon, July 31st, I accidentally called, in company with Sir J. Jamison, at the house of Dr Douglass - he was not at home - we proceeded along the road and accidentally looking behind us, we saw a young woman running from Dr Douglass' house towards us - I recognized her to be Ann Rumsby - I had a conversation with her for a few minutes, and was informed of the following particulars.' In the Affidavit, which follows it is said 'that the memorandum is, in every particular and respect a true, and faithful recital.'
From the tenor of the memorandum, it would be made to appear that the complaint of Ann Rumsby was uninvited by Mr Hall - that the meeting at which it was made, was unsought and unforeseen by him. He had accidentally called at Dr Douglass' house, and was coming away, when accidentally turning round, he saw a young woman running towards them, whom he recognized to be Ann Rumsby. It is not suggested that this interview was sought by Mr Hall - in his letters to Mr Marsden - to the Governor - to the Commissioner of the Navy - in no part of his statement before the Magistrates, is such a circumstance stated or in the most distant manner alluded to, important as it necessarily was in the investigations which followed the complaint. On the contrary, it is left to be inferred from all these that the complaint of Ann Rumsby was unsolicited by Mr Hall, and entirely originated within herself. Now, whether such was, or was not the case, is a very important fact; and if it were the fact, and were kept out of sight by Mr Hall, it must throw a shade over his motives, and bring his veracity into question. A suppressio veri, may be more fatal, and is equally culpable with a publicatio falsi. and as the memorandum was drawn at leisure, and deliberately framed for the purpose of forwarding accusation, there can be no excuse on the score of surprize or inadvertence for the suppression of so material a fact as whether a young servant girl ran breathless after a person whom she regarded as a protector, to disclose a most flagrant case of blended public and private delinquency, or whether it had been previously intimated to her that she seemed unhappy, and this intimation followed by the appointment of a private interview, with promise of secrecy and assistance. If this be the true point of view in which the conduct of Mr Hall should be regarded, he must stand or fall by the memorandum, whether it contains the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or whether it willfully suppresses a fact most material to the credit of the accuser and the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the spirit of this view, let us look at the testimony of Ann Rumsby (a witness produced by Mr Hall himself) and the affidavits of four witnesses whose testimony exactly dove-tails with Ann Rumsby's, and bears unequivocal marks of accuracy - and is corroborated by the negative circumstance of its being easily contradicted if untrue, and no witness being called to invalidate it in a single particular.
'Qn. Did Mr Hall speak to you? Ans. Yes. Qn. What did he say? Ans. I don't know what the words were. Qn. What did you think they were? Ans. I understood to come to him - but I won't say it was, because I don't know. Qn. What took place after that? Ans. I went down to the front gate and went after Mr Hall. Qn. Where did you overtake him? Ans. About half way to the turnpike on the Sydney road.' It will be observed that nothing is here said about Mr Hall sending a message to Ann Rumsby, because no question is directly pointed to that fact; - but the girl afterwards goes on to say, in answer to a general question as to when and where she communicated with Dr Hall. 'It was the same day, down on the Sydney road when he sent for me'. Qn. 'When did Dr Hall send for you?.' Ans. 'Very little while after I spoke to him - when I ran after him. Again Dr Hall told me, the second time, he had sent for me because he thought I had something laying on my mind.' All this was said in the presence of Mr Hall, and is fully corroborated by the affidavits of four other witnesses, who prove that Mr Hall beckoned Ann Rumsby to follow him, which she did out of the front door, where she remained about three minutes - or as another witness states it, upon Mr Hall's saying 'Ann I want you', the girl immediately went into the bedroom to adjust her clothes and then went thro' the parlour into the hall, and from thence (through the door) to the veranda. The latter witness expressed her surprize at the circumstance to her mistress, and observed that she thought 'he looked very much agitated and different from what he usually did'. That Mr Hall on leaving Dr Douglass' house sent a person named John Farley, usually called Scrummy Jack, with a message to Ann Rumsby, which was delivered to Andrew White, and by the latter to the girl, who immediately obeyed the summons and followed Mr Hall on the Sydney Road. How then can Mr Hall swear that he 'accidentally' turned round or reconcile to himself the suppression of all the material circumstances which are developed by other witnesses, and which preceded, and had a natural necessary and inseparable connection with the disclosures he elicited, and the charges he thought proper to prefer against a gentleman, a magistrate, and appointed the guardian of the females at Parramatta?
Of a piece with the memorandum and affidavit is the letter of Mr Hall to Ann Rumsby of 2nd August 1822. He writes a letter, which altho' it holds out the promise of secrecy as the inducement to disclosure, and wears all the semblance of a confidential communication, is delivered open to Sir John Jamison, and shown to Mr Marsden, before it was forwarded to the person to whom it was addressed. What was the object of this letter? - if to obtain a repetition of what she had before told, it was useless – if it were intended to disclose the answer, it was unfair to hold out the promise of secrecy, with the premeditated design of betraying her - if it was to obtain the truth, it was an extraordinary method of eliciting it, to praise a young convict for the charms of her person, the nobleness of her soul in triumphing over temptation, to promise friendship and assistance as the reward of her telling all, and to invite her to repeat what she had before said before under the pledge inviolable secrecy - was this the way to extract the truth, or to hold out inducement to falsehood, and furnish materials for accusation? Mr Hall - whatever may have been his motives - appears entirely, in the ardor of his exertions on behalf of 'suffering morality and virtue,' to have overlooked the possibility of his charges being founded in misrepresentation, and that whatever might be the issue, he was wounding the honor of a gentleman, and destroying the peace of his family - and he appears also to have overlooked that which more nearly concerned himself, that the means he used were not only unfair towards the accused, but supply unequivocal proofs of very grave charges against his own motives and conduct in the affair.
Of the proceedings before the Magistrate:
It is a plain rule that, in every proceeding before Justices of the Peace, there should be a complainant, that the complaint should be on oath, and that Justices should assure themselves that the case was within their jurisdiction. In the proceedings before the Magistrates at Sydney, this plain rule appears to have been so systematically overlooked, that it does not once occur in the course of several sittings, that the case was regularly before the Court. The first irregularity is announced by the Chairman at the opening of the case - 'he had received a letter from Dr Hall calling upon him as Chaplain and Magistrate to interfere on behalf of Ann Rumsby' - this letter is not merely a statement of facts upon which the proposed enquiry was to proceed, but is a complete assumption of the truth of the statement of Ann Rumsby, and a strong denunciation of the accused - a letter very indecent in Hall to write to a Magistrate and equally unbecoming in the Magistrate, who might be called upon to decide upon the charges contained in such letter, to receive and act upon. – The letter states that the Magistrate's 'feelings were greatly excited' at his narrative - how could the magistrate allow himself to sit in judgment under the influence of previously excited feelings, and with such a letter, or rather decree in his pocket? It is next stated that the receipt of this letter was mentioned to Dr Douglass by Mr Marsden in the presence of Mr Hannibal McArthur, and that the Magistrates would assemble on that morning to examine the young woman on the subject of her complaint. Now this might have been intended as a very courteous mode of acting towards a brother magistrate; but no man is compellable to accept a courtesy, and whether Dr Douglass would or would not attend this method of invitation was entirely within his own discretion. He did not attend; he was not bound to attend; he was the accused and he had a right to exercise his own judgment upon the matter. Yet the Court, without any proof whatever upon the mere dixit of Mr Marsden, and without even calling upon Dr Douglas to explain his reasons for not attending, resolve that he has treated the magistrates with contempt and, to mark their sense of the gross impropriety of his conduct, determine no longer to associate or act with him as a Magistrate. This, to say the least was an extrajudicial and unwarrantable proceeding unsanctioned by any law, and unsupported by any intelligible good feeling. After other 'inexplicable conduct', the Bench of Magistrates resumed their sitting on the 19th of August and enter upon 'the complaint of Ann Rumsby'; this complaint to come within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates must have involved some breach of the peace, or some breach of contract in the relation of master and servant; it might naturally be expected that the enquiries of the Bench would have been confined to the questions, whether Dr Douglas had offered any personal violence to Ann Rumsby, or whether, as master of a convict servant, he had attempted any thing which might fairly be considered infringing upon the terms of his contract with the Crown; but on the contrary, Mr Hall commences, after some allusion to his own moral and religious motives, a course of examination, the sole end of which is to justify himself; this examination runs thro' no less that twelve pages of the proceedings and terminates with a copy of his confidential letter to Ann Rumsby, a publication, for which the letter itself bears internal marks of being from the first intended.
The inquiries respecting the alleged conduct of Dr Douglas are answered in a few words; 'the complainant Ann Rumsby' has no complaint to make, both 'her master and mistress had treated her very kindly, ever since she had been in their house'; Dr Hall had mistaken her meaning. Upon this the Bench of Magistrates pronounces the sense it entertains of the propriety of the conduct of Mr Hall - and feels itself at a loss to express its abhorrence of the infamous conduct of Ann Rumsby. The Bench concluded the investigation, not by dismissing the complaint and thus giving Dr Douglas the benefit at least of such a dismissal, but by pronouncing Ann Rumsby to be guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, and sentencing her to removal to Port McQuarrie for the residue of her original term of transportation. It may be unnecessary to add any remark except that the court had no power to try an offence of perjury, even if it had been committed; and that there is not a shadow of proof on the proceedings that perjury was in fact committed.
Of the subsequent resolutions of the Magistrates and Judges;
The Magistrates, by the intolerant condition they thought proper to annex to their retaining their seats, placed it out of the power of the Governor to continue them in office; the act of dismissal was their own. The unanimous resolution of the two judges and the six other magistrates is drawn in measured terms, but it goes to two points, entire approbation of the proceedings of the Bench in the case of Ann Rumsby, and disapproval, by inference, of the line of conduct pursued by the Governor, by declaring the members, who composed the Bench, from their independent Spirit and strict impartiality, most competent for the duties from which it was evident they were about to withdraw. The Magistrates were certainly free to act as they thought best; but the two Judges appear to have forgotten that in the course of the proceedings of the Bench which sat on the case of Ann Rumsby, there might be questionable acts, upon which the party feeling aggrieved had an undoubted right to take the opinion of the Courts in which they presided; and the previous opinions, they might have given upon the propriety of those proceedings, could not disqualify the Judge for affording him redress, nor does it help the case that the resolution was passed in private and under the bond of secrecy.
Of the case and conduct of Ann Rumsby;
It would rather seem, from the whole of the circumstances of this unhappy person's case, that, she was afflicted at the recollection of home, the ruin of herself, and the distress of her friends; that under the pressure of these feelings she was desirous of change in her situation, and wished to get into the family of Mr. Field, possibly to be at Sydney, or possibly in the hope of obtaining some advantage or other. This seems to be an undenied fact, and runs through every statement in the case. It would appear also that Mr. Hall invited some disclosure, from perhaps a worthy feeling of sympathy towards. the girl, and that under the promise of secrecy she dropped some expressions which should induce Hall to interest himself and Mr. Marsden in getting her removed to Mr. Field's. Had this been voluntary, it ought indeed to be visited with some punishment; but if it were sought and prompted by the promise of secrecy and the prospect of reward, it might be difficult to say it should not be overlooked. It is not fair to tamper with the sufferings of an unfortunate young woman, praise her beauty and her virtue, and prompt her to make false accusation with the pledge of secrecy and the prospect of ameliorating her condition. Still less fair is it to force her unwillingly to become a witness against the person holding over her the authority of a master, and interrogate her about things, which, unless they are voluntarily revealed by her sex, are seldom candidly answered. Her case in every point of view was hard; she was comparatively happy at Dr. Douglas; if there has been culpability, it did not originate with her, and even the fact is doubtful. That she has been illegally tried and sentenced, there can be no doubt.
Such are the remarks which have occurred to me on an attentive perusal of the papers relating to the case of Ann Rumsby.
'F.F 4th March, 1823.'
EARL BATHURST TO SIR THOMAS BRISBANE
(Despatch No 20 per ship Ocean)
Downing Street, 1st April 1823
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No 22 of the 6th Septr. last and as an action has been commenced against Dr Hall for bringing charges against Dr Douglass, reflecting on his conduct to Ann Rumsby, I shall not feel it necessary to make any observations upon the details of the case; at the same time it is impossible not, to be struck the extreme discrepancy of the evidence, for in a memorandum drawn up by Dr. Hall, and sworn to before the Judge Advocate, he states 'At noon, July 31st, I accidentally called, in company with Sir J. Jamison, at the house of Dr. Douglass; he was not at home, we proceeded along the Road and accidentally looking behind us, we saw a young woman running from Dr. Douglass's house towards us. I recognised her to be Ann Rumsby.' On the contrary, Ann Rumsby states, on being asked when and where she communicated with Dr. Hall, 'it was the same day down on the Sydney Road when he sent for me' and again. 'Dr. Hall told me the second time he had sent for me, because he thought I had something laying on my mind.' This evidence is corroborated by four other Witnesses and is important, because it is left to be inferred, from Dr. Hall's statement, that the complaint of Ann Rumsby entirely originated from herself, and that the interview was unsolicited by him. I enclose you a report which I have received from the gaoler of Norwich, relative to Ann Rumsby, and which is the only information I have been able to obtain respecting her.
The conduct of the Magistrates appears to me to have been most injudicious as well as illegal. They possessed no power to declare Ann Rumsby guilty of perjury, nor is there any sort of proof in the proceedings that it was committed. I have therefore to approve of your dismissal of these gentlemen, as their conduct appears to have placed it out of your power to have continued them in Office, with advantage to the interests of the Colony, as involved in the due exercise of their judicial duties, uninfluenced by private resentment or party feeling.
I have, &c BATHURST
Sir Thomas Brisbane
Governor
Colony of New South Wales
JAMES HALL TO NAVY BOARD
His Majesty's Sloop Bathurst
Plymouth,
23rd April 1823
Gentlemen
I beg leave to inform you of my arrival in H M Sloop Bathurst from New South Wales, which colony we left on the 25th September last and having now discharged that duty which the Navy Board was pleased to assign me, I beg permission to lay before it the following remarks.
When I had the honor of being appointed to the charge of the Female Convicts on board the Mary Ann Transport I received instructions from you directing me to promote the reformation of those females and by every possible means prevent their prostitution. You also informed me that the Secretary of State had commanded the Governor of New South Wales to enquire how far these instructions had been complied with and that a gratuity would not be given me should those instructions be found to have been neglected. Although I am persuaded that few officers could be found to require the stimulation of a gratuity to incite them to a faithful performance of any public duty imposed on them, yet some may be more successful than others owing to the influence of moral and physical causes, and not to any superiority of merit or greater zeal in the individuals themselves. In my former voyage in the Agamemnon with male Convicts I witnessed the good effects that were produced in the Morals of the Convicts by the steady application of rules founded on the Instructions which I had received from your Board and the success that results from the labours of Surgeon Superintendent Reed of the Morley Female Convict ship convinced me that the reformation of the morals of Convicts of both sexes is in many instances attained.
It is not for me, Gentlemen, to enumerate the advantages that flow to Society from the reformation of Convicts, nor to make any remarks on the importance of it, in promoting the welfare of the Colony of New South Wales, because your command to me shewed that it had already been appreciated by you. During 7 months I laboured to carry into effect the instructions which I had received from your Board and the Journal which I shall have the honour to transmit, will clearly show how far I succeeded. It will also furnish you with additional proofs of the practicality of preventing prostitution among female Convicts, provided the Surgeon Superintendent fully employs the measures he possesses under the present instructions.
Having thus, Gentlemen, had the honour of making the preceding report to you, as the result of my experience in the management and reformation of female Convicts, I would have wished here to close this letter and being conscious that I have done my duty to the best of my means, I should only have to indulge the hope of again being honoured by your approbation.
But extraordinary circumstances having occurred, which have placed me in a most painful situation, I beg leave to request the serious attention of the Board whilst I relate them.
The communications which I have already had the honor of making to it, from the Colony, have furnished you with much information upon this matter, but being at present on bail and partly freed from the evils that surrounded me when I made those communications to the Board, I have considered, Gentlemen, that my duty towards you and justice to myself require me to lay before you a concise outline of those circumstances.
On my arrival at Port Jackson I delivered over the convicts to the Female factory at Parramatta; which is under the control of Dr Douglass, who is a magistrate and also one of the Colonial Assistant Surgeons. Among the Convicts was a young woman named Ann Rumsby, who had remarkably distinguished herself by the propriety of her conduct whilst she was under my charge. This young woman was soon after taken from the factory by Dr D. to his own house under the plea of preparing her for the service of Mr Justice Field (who had never even applied for a Servant). I had occasion to call one day on Dr D., whom I did not find at home and having left the house this young woman ran after me down the public road and claiming my protection implored me to get her removed to the Judge's family whither she had been led to believe she was assigned, when he, Dr D. took her from the Factory. From the particulars of the statement she made to me it appeared that this Colonial officer had taken her to his House expressly for criminal purposes, or to use her own expressions to 'to ruin her'.
I immediately took such steps as seemed to be necessary to effect her removal from Dr D. and in consideration of his Wife and family, of his having the charge of the morals of the Females and more especially his being a magistrate, I deemed it prudent to conceal from the Public his apparent atrocity of conduct and breach of duty. Meeting soon afterwards with one of his immediate friends and neighbours, the Reverend Mr Marsden, the principal Chaplain of the Colony, I related the circumstances of Ann Rumsby's application to me for protection and requested him to do what might be necessary for her in consequence of my expected speedy departure from the Colony.
From the integrity and independency of spirit of this worthy Minister I presumed that nothing more was necessary for him to do than give his friend Dr D. a hint that the young woman had exposed his brutal treatment of her and to accompany it with advice to send her away to the Service to which he pretended that he had assigned her when he took her from the Factory. The exertions of this Gentleman, proved fruitless and after a few days he informed me of such impropriety of conduct in Dr D as gave us both cause to suspect that he was employing coercive measures over the young woman in order hereafter to accomplish his purpose by indirect means or to conceal the effects of his flagrant breaches of public duty.
I instantly wrote a Public Letter to this Gentleman, the Reverend Mr Marsden wherein I laid before him all the particulars of the conduct of Dr D. and called on him, being the senior magistrate to investigate into the affair.
With great unwillingness on the part of Dr D. an arrangement was made with him that the young woman should appear before the Bench of Magistrates. But when the day appointed for the investigation arrived Dr D. eluded an enquiry being instituted into his conduct by privately carrying off the young woman to Sydney, contemning (sic) also publicly the power of the magistrates over him – still continuing in the routine of the public Service and Dr D. by shunning an enquiry setting the authority of magistrates at defiance left no doubts on my mind of his guilt. I waited on the Colonial Secretary and to him I communicated all that had occurred. He then immediately informed me that if I would set down and put into writing what I had verbally stated he would lay my Letter before His Excellency the Governor. In the presence of the Colonial Secretary and at his desk I sat down and, wrote officially to the Governor, stating the conduct of Dr D. towards his Convict Servant calling also for an immediate release of the young woman from his power and influence least these should be successfully exerted over her to the defeating of the ends of public justice and expressing an apprehension that he would induce her to commit perjury by denying the criminal charges which she had preferred against him: a fear which was afterwards unfortunately realized. A copy of this said letter, Gentlemen, I had the honour to send to the Board and I beg you will be pleased to direct your attention to it, for it is from these two official letters written on H.M. Service that matter has been extracted by the Colonial Government for a criminal and civil prosecution against me for having injured the character of Dr Douglas.
And with a design to ruin me and confine me for the remainder of my life to a Prison, the Colonial Lawyer was directed to lay the damages as high as possible in order 'to meet the gravity of my crime!' A crime no doubt it is to some when iniquity is detected, but surely Gentlemen, you cannot consider that I was guilty of a crime in endeavouring to promote the public good, and in carrying into effect the spirit of the Instructions which I had received from you. The opinion of the Bench of Magistrates pronounced on my conduct is before the Board and happily for me renders it not necessary, I trust, to say more of myself than I have already done. But with respect to the pretended injury which Dr D. has received in his character by what I have done I beg to acquaint you that his brother magistrates refused to act any longer with him in the Magistracy and the Public considered him a bad Man, even the Governor condemned his conduct. This cruel and unjust prosecution would therefore be more painful to my feelings, Gentlemen, were it not for the reflection that it is better to suffer unjustly than deservedly. After much exertions and perseverance in combating the obstacles opposed to me I caused an investigation to be made by an examination of the young woman before the Bench of Magistrates. Their unbiased decision was that Dr Douglas had disgraced the Magistracy and that his conduct had been immoral and highly culpable towards Ann Rumsby.
The Magistrates also informed the Governor officially that the sacred function of the magistracy had been perverted and brought into public contempt by the immoral conduct of Dr Douglass, which had determined them no longer to associate with him. The Judges and other Magistrates being soon after publicly convened, fully approved the resolution of the Bench. In a few days I became alarmed by rumours of the determination of the Colonial government to punish me severely for having opposed the conduct of Dr D.
After being perplexed and harassed for many days and nights by these rumours, notice was at length given to me by the Crown solicitor of the orders he had received from the Colonial Government to prosecute me civilly and criminally for libels on the character of Dr D. written by me in the official Letters to the Magistrate and to the Governor.
In the meantime the Governor received me in the most flattering manner assuring me of his conviction that I had acted properly and from the purest motives; at the same time expressing his disappointment of the conduct of Dr Douglass. Although the Supreme Court was sitting nothing more was done for several days during which my anxiety increased to a most painful state in proportion to the nearer approach of the day fixed for the sailing of the Shipley. The uncertainty of my fate preventing me from making any steady preparations either for my stay or my departure. Having paid my passage money and embarked part of my baggage the hour arrived for the passengers to embark and now the threats of the Colonial Government were realised Whist passing near the jail I was suddenly arrested and served with a writ to answer an action instituted against me by the Colonial Government for a libel on the character of Dr D. The damages being laid at the enormous sum of Five Thousand pounds! Caused bail to be required of me to the amount of Five hundred. This being a large sum and myself a stranger in the Colony my situation seemed to preclude all my hope of my escaping perpetual confinement among Botany Bay thieves in the common Jail.
Whilst preparing to enter this horrible prison the benevolence of some individuals induced them to bail me. By this liberality I was enabled by great exertions to write the letter which I had the honor of sending to the Board with several enclosures per Shipley, and to which I beg leave, gentlemen, now to refer you. After the departure of the Shipley I and my solicitor endeavoured to bring on the trial; the judge also very kindly promised to keep the Supreme Court open a few days beyond Term for my accommodation. After various artful delays and procrastinations on the part of the Colonial Government a day was finally fixed for the trial of the action. However soon after I was informed by the Crown Solicitor that the case would not be tried for some time; and on the same day I was privately informed that the cause of this was that one of the members of the Court was a magistrate who had approved the conduct of the Bench of Magistrates and investigated the complaint against Dr D. Having therefore found it impossible to bring on the action, which might be artfully delayed for several months, and being daily in dread of being persecuted in the criminal Court, I deemed it prudent to apply to Captain King, of H.M. Sloop Bathurst for a passage to England.
The importance of the action which has been brought against me compelled me to appoint an Agent and employ legal aid, by which my pecuniary affairs have become seriously embarrassed and the consequences of the trial will, even under the most favourable termination of it, very seriously injure my Family. Perhaps but for this consideration I might bear the apprehension of those consequences as easily as I did that of the expense and trouble which I incurred when I first stood forth in this business under the strong impulse arising from a sense of public duty.
I have endeavoured, gentlemen, in this letter to adhere, as much as possible, to a brief and simple recital of the facts, and whenever I may have deviated from this I hope for your indulgence. But should the Board wish for fuller information I shall most gladly submit for its perusal a narrative containing all the details of the extraordinary occurrences connected with this affair, together with copies of all the letters that passed. In the meantime I beg leave, Gentlemen, to refer you to Captain King, who is intimately acquainted with all the particulars, and was in court during the investigation of the charges, which I exhibited against Dr Douglass, the Colonial Assistant Surgeon. Having laid now before you a sketch of the persecutions that I have suffered, and made known to you the prosecution that threatens my ruin, all which have arisen from my zeal to promote the good of H.M. Service and the welfare of the Colony, I flatter myself with a hope that the Navy Board will bestow its serious attention to my case, and, as I have been solely activated in my public conduct by an earnest desire to discharge conscientiously the duties entrusted to me, I now solicit the support and protection of the Navy Board.
Placing full reliance, gentlemen, on your candour and liberal encouragement, I have only to express my deep regret that I have had to occupy so much of your attention.
I have the honor to be,
Your most humble
and obedient servant,
James Hall
Late Surgeon Superintendent of the Mary Ann, Female Convict ship.