l distrust.

Bryan ascribed his treatment to an early difference with Arthur. The
land he obtained on his arrival was less than he claimed, and he
appealed successfully to the secretary of state; but he was told by a
friend of the governor, that this was an offence not to be pardoned: no
man could appeal against Arthur with final impunity.

Mr. Bryan was not altogether a martyr. He received upon the whole 4,000
acres of land; and in a letter to Arthur, he wrote:--"Permit me to
return you my sincere thanks (as much for the manner as the matter) of
your very kind letter of the 11th instant. To the same principle of
impartiality which you have evinced in my cause, I leave the increase of
my grant, resting quite satisfied that if my exertions deserve it they
will be rewarded."[191] Mr. Bryan had then received 1,500 acres; he
afterwards received 2,500.

Mr. Bryan instituted an action against Mr. Hortle, the agent of
government in the recall of his servants. The issue depended greatly on
the manner of trial--whether by assessors, or a jury of twelve. The
court possessed a discretion. The law officers asserted, and the judges
allowed, that the colonists were disqualified by common interest to form
an impartial judgment, and a jury was refused. Bryan then dropped the
action, which he objected to entrust to assessors, directed perhaps by a
member of the executive: for the same reason he withdrew his proceedings
against the police magistrate for defamation of character. He returned
to England: sought redress from the ministers, but in vain. On this
case the opinion of impartial persons can hardly err. Yet the right of
the governor to withdraw men, though not to be exercised in a wanton and
destructive manner, was hardly to be disputed. The opinion of the
English law officers of the crown favored that view, although it would
be dangerous to take their version as decisive. "We," say they, "are
clearly of opinion, that under the 9th section of 9th Geo. iv. c. 83,
governors can revoke assignment of a convict, of whose sentence it is
not intended to grant any remission; and we think there is nothing
against the apparent policy of the act which militates against that
construction."

For carrying a challenge to Mr. Lyttleton, Lewis was put on his trial.
The conventional turpitude of the offence wholly depended on the
provocation. A magistrate could not be covered by his privilege when
standing in the street, and announcing his opini