Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/171

 Secretary of State dealt seriously with the subject, and in the same month Phillip acquainted him with further troubles in which Ross was a prime mover. Phillip's tact had at the time secured the services of no less than fifteen criminal courts; but in April 1789 one Captain Campbell, a close friend of Ross, objected to sit, and while it was unknown whether others would join the recalcitrant Campbell, Ross, suggesting that they might do so, said "he knew of no Articles of War to compel them." Under the forms previously observed the senior officers of the detachment and of the Navy were named in General Orders, and afterwards "a roster for that service was kept;" the Judge-Advocate sent to "the Adjutant for the names of the officers next for that duty, whose names being inserted in the precept signed and sealed by me (Phillip), were then shown. to the different officers who were to compose the court by the Provost-Marshal, which is always done one or two days before the court is to meet.

When Campbell refused to act, Phillip appointed a court of inquiry; but the members "did not think themselves competent to give an opinion on a private dispute, which appeared to them to involve in itself a point of law." Phillip dissolved them, and Ross officially informed him that Campbell would protest against the statement that "the matter was of a private nature." Subsequently Campbell "declined making any protest." Striving to keep these dissensions from the knowledge of his subjects, Phillip instructed the Adjutant to—

"give the Judge-Advocate as usual the names of the officers who were next for the duty of the Criminal Court, but he then came to inform me that Major Ross did not choose to let him give the names at the Judge-Advocate's request, and desired that it might appear in General Orders, or that a verbal message might be sent him from me. The message was sent, and in the names given to the Judge-Advocate, Captain Campbell's appeared, and he sat the next day as a member of the Criminal Court. I had sent for several of the officers before the Court met, in order to point out the consequences which would follow their refusal of so essential a part of their duty, and the officers I saw on that occasion assured me