These convictions took place under an obsolete colonial regulation of 1802, made in the first instance by Governor King, to meet a temporary emergency; but virtually set aside by a general order of Governor Macquarie's, of a much later date, granting the indulgence under certain regulations, with which Mr. Marsden had complied. Mr. Marsden says, in his official defence, that he "was the only person in the colony who was ever fined under such circumstances, since the first establishment of the colony, to the present time." And he adds a statement which, had it not come down to us thus accredited under his own hand, would have seemed incredible, namely that "the two magistrates by whom the fines were inflicted, Dr. ---- and Lieut. ----, were doing, on that very day, the same thing for which they fined me and punished my servant, and I pointed that out to them at the time they were sitting on the bench, and which they could not deny." Denial indeed was out of the question, since, says Mr. Marsden, "one of Dr. ----'s convict servants, Henry Buckingham, by trade a tailor, was working for me, and had been so for months. Lieut. ---- at that very time also had two convict servants belonging to Dr. Harris, working for him at his own house." In vain did Mr. Marsden appeal to the governor; even he was afraid to breast the torrent, which for a time bore all before it. "He found no reason to interfere with the colonial law." Mr. Marsden prayed him at least to bring the matter before a full bench of magistrates, in whose hands he would leave his character; this, too, the governor declined, whereupon as a last step, he laid the affair before the supreme court for its decision; prosecuting the magistrates, and obtaining a verdict for the amount of the fine so unjustly levied. They now affected to triumph in the small amount of the damages in which they were cast, "wishing," he says, "to make the world believe that the injury I had sustained was proportionally small." And thus even his forbearance and his Christian spirit in rendering good for evil, were turned against him; for he had instructed his solicitor expressly, not to insert in the indictment the count or charge of malice, but merely to sue for the recovery of the amount of the fine. He states the case thus in simple and forcible language. "I may here observe, the only error it appears I committed originally was in not prosecuting the magistrates for vindictive damages before the supreme court. Had I alleged malice, I must have obtained a verdict accordingly; but I sought for no vindictive damages; I sought redress no further than to set my character right with the public. To have done more than this would not have become me, according to my judgment, as a minister of the gospel, and I instructed my solicitor, Mr. Norton, merely to sue for the amount of the award which had been levied on my property by warrant and distress of sale.