d without moral weight, and the money was eventually paid.

Several months after the departure of Mr. William Bryan for Great
Britain, his nephew, Mr. Robert Bryan, and another, were charged with
cattle-stealing. The constables who professed to watch the prisoners,
alleged that they saw the animal in question driven homeward by the
accused, and on the second day following discovered the skin thrown into
the scrub. Witnesses contradicted the constables, who were all prisoners
of the crown, in some material points. The young man was sentenced to
death. The capital penalty was not inflicted; but it was the popular
notion that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

The young man, Robert Bryan, was tried on two separate indictments, and
such was the evidence, that many unprejudiced persons concurred in the
verdict: yet the witnesses against him were open to suspicion. It was
commonly asserted that he was sacrificed; if not by the contrivance,
with the concurrence of the government.

The trial was reported by the _Colonial Times_. The editor, Mr Henry
Melville, pointed out in strong language the suspicion of unfairness;
the dependence of the jury; the presence of the governor at Launceston
during the trial; the infamous character of certain of the witnesses;
and the overruling a challenge of a juror by the prisoner. The remarks
of Melville were carried beyond the tolerated bounds of public
criticism; the attorney-general, Stephen, induced the court to issue an
attachment. The defendant was required to admit the authorship: this
being done, the judge whose conduct he had censured pronounced the
sentence.[192] To judge, condemn, and imprison, at once and by the party
offended, included all that tyranny could ask. Any reference to the
proceedings of a court, which the judge might choose to pronounce a
libel, might consign to perpetual imprisonment. A similar case, at
Newfoundland, was discussed in the House of Commons, and the ministers
joined the opposition in severely reprehending the practice. The papers
published the debate, and Arthur slowly obeyed the signal, and gave
Melville his liberty.

Motions for attachment have not often disgraced the administration of
justice: they are relics of barbarous times. This process was issued
against Fawkner, the editor of the _Launceston Advertiser_, who escaped
by an apology; and it was moved for by the attorney-general, Stephen,
against Murray and Melville, for calling an affidavit of