Boon it was intended to grant, and which is as follows,
"Provided that no person, whether an Aboriginal or other, SHALL BE
CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENCE by any justice or jury upon the SOLE TESTIMONY
of any such uncivilized persons." 7 and 8 Victoria, section 5.
Here then we find that if a native were ill-treated or shot by an
European, and the whole tribe able to bear witness to the fact, no
conviction and no punishment could ensue: let us suppose that in an
attempt to maltreat the native, the European should be wounded or injured
by him, and that the European has the native brought up and tried for a
murderous attack upon him, how would it fare with the poor native? the
oath of the white man would overpower any exculpatory unsworn testimony
that the native could bring, and his conviction and punishment would be
(as they have been before) certain and severe.
Without attempting to assign a degree of credence to the testimony of a
native beyond what it deserves, I will leave it to those who are
acquainted with Colonies, and the value of an oath among the generality
of storekeepers and shepherds, to say how far their SWORN evidence is, in
a moral point of view, more to be depended upon than the unsworn parole
of the native.
