Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/635

 VETO OF CHIEF JUSTICE (ON BILLS) ABOLISHED. 607 Douglass. ... He has been heard to say that he would have no objection to sit down with ,'^, or , or any other emancipist gentleman. . . amongst all respectable persons he is detested. . . . You can have no idea of the operation of these fire- brand papers upon the common people, and every one not connected with the convict interest admits that the most dangerous consequences are to be dreaded. Their present most apparent effect is discontent, deter- mined idleness, and in many cases insubordination and open contempt towards their masters and the magistracy. Forbes did not attend the Council when the Bill was passed. All the other members were unanimous, though several doubt as I do whether fourpence is sufficient to prevent the paper from being bought by the prisoners. Macarthur's evidence, as an eye-witness, is valuable. There could have been no coolness towards him in Darling's " profound silence," for the Gazette shows that in June 1827, Macarthur's sons, James and William, were made magistrates. Though the Governor kept his own counsel he was not blind to the danger of retaining the tool of Forbes in the confidential post of Clerk to the Council. An honourable man of any opinions may be trusted, but in such a position a willing creature without high feelings can hardly fail to be mischievous. As early as Aug. 1826 Lord Bathurst confirmed Douglass in the situation of Com- missioner of Bequests, which Darling had " selected for him in preference to that of Clerk of the Council." A military locuin tenens held the latter office for a short time, but it was afterwards filled (in 1828) by the appointment of Edward Deas Thomson, who was for fifty years to fill a foremost place in public life and public esteem in Sydney. Douglass misconducted himself in such a manner that he was content to obey an order of the Governor directing him to leave the colony in May 1828. It is proper to mention that the Law Officers in England thought that Forbes correctly executed his duty in refusing to certify the Licensing Act, and in to the Stamp Duty. The Colonial Office, however (sec. 21, 22 of the Constitution Act of 1828), withdrew from the functions of the Chief Justice a power which gave him a veto upon legislation, and which tended to make him a partisan. The feelings of Forbes were perhaps soothed by '* One of the characters whose iU deeds were exposed by Commissioner Bigge. There is no object in reprinting the ii&m^ ^et^.
 * ' acting upon the opinion he had formed" with regard