"apostate;" and, apparently ignorant of the kindly feeling
entertained by Governor King for Barrallier, attributed the
misfortunes of the latter to King's enmity, and pledged
himself, therefore, to be Barrallier's friend. He hoped to
be the bearer in 1804 of tidings of a new Governor, if
indeed he should not accompany him to Sydney. He told
Piper that he was "up to the ears in papers for carrying
on the war against our common enemy." He failed. The
despatches of King convinced Lord Camden that the
Governor was the right man for his post, and though
writers unacquainted with the truth have assailed King
as a weak man, the facts still speak in his justification.
Macarthur himself was less fortunate at the Horse Guards
than his friend Piper, although King was blamed for
sending him to England. The War Office did not wait
for the arrival of McKellar, or for further information,
but considered King ill-judged in sending Macarthur to
England, and ordered that Macarthur should be remanded
to Sydney (released from arrest), the Commander-in-Chief
conceiving that "in consequence of the difficulty which
occurs in the assembling of a court-martial," for the trial,
"Governor King will not be desirous to bring the charges
against Captain Macarthur before a military tribunal."
The Commander-in-Chief thus practically admitted, as King
had urged, that it was futile to try Macarthur in Sydney.
The Secretary of State blamed King for sending him to
England. The case was of sufficient importance to necessitate a new General Order in England. The Commander-in-Chief (1st Feb. 1804) made it known" in consequence of recent occurrences"—that the practice of sending from
"foreign stations officers with articles of accusation pending
against them, without the same having been duly investigated, is detrimental to the king's service, and except in
cases of the most urgent necessity should be avoided." It
might relieve the local commanders from embarrassment,
but seldom failed to transfer them with increased difficulties to head-quarters."
"His Royal Highness judges it expedient to take this opportunity of controverting an erroneous opinion, that an officer who has been put under an arrest has a right, as it is termed, to demand a court-martial on himself, and may persist in considering himself still under the restraint of such an arrest although publicly released therefrom by the superior officer who
