Page:A colonial autocracy, New South Wales under Governor Macquarie, 1810-1821.djvu/302

 Macquarie to transmit a full report of the trial. He was, however, ready to let the matter rest, and did not express sympathy with Marsden's desire for Campbell's dismissal.

Marsden for a time very unwillingly continued to act as magistrate at Parramatta. In March, 1818, the Judge-Advocate being in the town, visited the gaol, and on his return to Sydney suggested that the Governor should release some of the prisoners in order to lessen the pressure on the gaol accommodation. This was done without further communication with Marsden, who had been the committing magistrate. Already bitterly hurt by Wylde's behaviour in the libel action, and always very ready to accept any action as a criticism on his magisterial sternness (for his severity was probably often brought into invidious comparison with Macquarie's clemency), Marsden at once wrote to Macquarie resigning his office. This was on the 18th March, 1818, and the only answer Marsden received was a copy of a General Order which stated curtly, "that his Excellency the Governor had been pleased to dispense with the services of the Rev. Samuel Marsden as justice of the peace and magistrate at Parramatta and the surrounding districts".

Although from this time Marsden might with good reason have displayed a greater hostility towards the Governor, there appears no evidence to connect him with any hostile demonstration. Under the circumstances the clergyman, who was a hot-tempered, full-blooded man, behaved with remarkable self-control, and showed himself more sinned against than sinning. The chief interest of the whole affair lay, however, in the fact that this was the first trial for libel in the Colony, and that in the criminal trial and in the civil trial which followed it the defendant was not merely a Government official, but one in very close and intimate connection with the representative of the Crown, and one who styled himself the Censor of the Press. More important still was the fact that judgment was given against this official, and that the Censor of the Press learnt how narrowly the law limited his functions. In short, the action in the