The 4th Geo. i. (1717) conveyed an absolute property to the shipper, who again assigned to the master. An opinion was obtained from the law officers of the crown (about 1818), that the state of convict servitude was created by the 4th Geo. i. and subsequent statutes, under which a property in the servant was reserved to the master, whether captain or colonist: the power to punish was assumed as a necessary consequence.[165] The 5th Geo. iv. gave a right to the governors to release the convict from assignment, by a pardon, &c. A subsequent Act, for abolishing the punishment of death in certain cases, limited the exercise of mercy. The 9th Geo. iv. gave the governor power to revoke assignment; and made the master entirely dependant on the government. The local government rarely interfered with the prescriptive rights of the masters, nor did it often object to the transfer of servants when the value of an estate depended on the possession of bond labor. The most remarkable deviation from this policy was in the instance of Mr. William Bryan, a gentleman of considerable wealth, who was dismissed from the magistracy, and deprived of all his servants in one day (1833). Relying on the decision of the judges of New South Wales, he threatened an action, but the law of assignment being changed,[166] it was quite within the province of the Governor to recall a servant at any hour. The discretion of the executive was never brought into legal question; but the deprivation of a colonist in the midst of harvest, without public inquiry into any alleged malversation, taught the settlers that their fortunes were in the hands of the Governor. A London pickpocket required a long course of instruction; but his services were no longer secure to his master--a serious drawback from their worth. The transfer of servants, once convenient to the government, lasted until 1838, when it was finally abolished. It had been agreed by a settler, named Silcock, to transfer a servant to Mr. Theodore Bartley: on the application an endorsement was written--"the consent of the servant is, in all cases, necessary." This led to a long correspondence, in which several colonists took part. The settlers contended that, to require the servant's consent, was inconsistent with his civil condition; "tended to weaken the sense of submission and control," and raise him into a dispenser of favors. A large amount of polite recrimination enlivened this dispute, which perhaps ended as was best--the last bond was broken. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 159: _Courier_, 1829.] [Footnote 160: Colquhoun.] [Footnote 161: Arthur's evidence: _Par. Pap._] [Footnote 162: _Gazette_, 1825.] [Footnote 163: Murdoch's evidence: _Par. Pap._] [Footnote 164: _Sydney Gazette_, 1829.] [Footnote 165: _Bigge's Report._]