Page:History of West Australia.djvu/327

 Rh

office. The Chief Justice asked, as he was to be placed on what amounted to a criminal trial, that the case be heard in public, before members of the press, and that he be defended by counsel. This was declined. The Executive met, Mr. Onslow did not attend, and it was decided to suspend him on half-pay.

In 1888 the Secretary for the Colonies announced that the case would be referred to the Privy Council. In May an address from several citizens was presented to Governor Broome, disapproving of the recent public proceedings in favour of the Chief Justice, which had "disgraced the community," and expressing sympathy with the Queen's representative. The colony was divided in its opinions on the merits and demerits of the quarrel, and the West Australian espoused the Governor's cause, while the Inquirer applauded the Chief Justice. The community was so small that political and social organisations were drawn into the turmoil. In May, also, Governor Broome received a telegram announcing the decision of a committee of the Privy Council. That body considered three charges against the Chief Justice, embodying in reality the three phases of the dispute. Of the first phase the Privy Council reported that there was not sufficient ground for a formal charge against the Chief Justice, although he had acted indiscreetly in deferring the restoration of the papers. Of the second, they said that though, through irritation apparently arising from the first charge, the Chief Justice had used in his letter improper language towards the Governor, there were not adequate grounds for a charge intended to lead to suspension. The third charge they found to be more serious, inasmuch as the letter last referred to, and the letter to the Secretary for the Colonies, couched in language of great animosity to the Governor, were handed to the newspapers for publication, together with confidential information which the Chief Justice had not the right to give. Because of these facts they had some hesitation in not recommending the confirmation of the suspension, but as no misconduct of a moral character in connection with judicial duties was imputed to the Chief Justice, they recommended the removal of the suspension. To sum up, they remarked that the relations of the Governor and Chief Justice must have been prejudicial to the colony, and a continuance thereof must lead to deplorable results. An Order in Council was passed firming the report, and directing that the suspension be removed. Mr. Onslow took his seat at the Supreme Court on the 15th May, and Mr. Hensman congratulated him upon his return. Unhappily, the trouble did not end here. Accusations, impeaching even the justice meted out by Mr. Onslow were soon made. The community was thrown into worse confusion, and opponents more powerful and dangerous than the Governor, because less high, had to be fought by the Chief Justice. Messrs. Harper and Hackett, proprietors the West Australian, were interested in several cases heard before His Honour; almost from the beginning they had upheld Governor Broome. Mr. Hensman, a prominent advocate of the cause of Mr. Onslow, obtained damages against them for libel, and the Full Court refused an application for a new trial. There were only two judges, and in cases of disagreement in the Full Court, the opinion of the Chief Justice carried authority. The West Australian was also interested in a libel brought against the them by the Rev J.B. Gribble (mentioned elsewhere), and believed during the trial that the Chief Justice had shown partiality towards the plaintiff. There were other cases in which the West Australian doubted the impartiality of the Chief Justice.

Messrs. Harper and Hackett drew up, for presentation to the Legislative Council, a petition wherein they alleged that for years Chief Justice Onslow had been influenced by a deep prejudice against the West Australian and Western Mail (their weekly journal). It recited the history of the proprietors' troubles in the Hensman, Gribble, and other cases, and proclaimed that they had suffered for nearly five years; that their business, properties, and reputations were imperilled, and that they could not obtain justice in the Supreme Court—"persecuted, plundered, and insulted, we are helpless and without relief before the chief tribunal of our Queen." They asked that the House address the Governor and request him to appoint a third judge to the Supreme Court; and that such part of the 19th Sec. of Act 44 Vic. No. 10 be repealed which provided that in case of a difference of opinion between the two judges of the Court, respecting any judgment or decision, the judgment of the Chief Justice should prevail. A petition of almost similar purport was sent to the Secretary for the Colonies, and the trouble soon assumed a very important character. In October, 1888, Mr. Parker presented the petition to the Legislative Council, and, after a long and exciting debate, it was decided before taking any steps to respectfully request the Governor to forward a copy of the petition to the Chief Justice for any remarks he might be pleased to make thereon. This was done to enable all parties to the dispute to present their case. After a reply was received from Mr. Onslow, the Council agreed to take no further steps in respect to the petition pending the reference of the memorial to the Secretary for the Colonies.

Chief Justice Onslow communicated with Lord Knutsford in the same month at some length, asking for justice, and accusing Messrs. Harper and Hackett of making "outrageous and malicious charges". In January, 1889, the local Executive Council held an official enquiry, when the Chief Justice and Messrs. Harper and Hackett were present, and Judge Stone appeared as a witness. It was desired to leave the whole matter to the Privy Council to decide, as the questions for examination were of a judicial character. The Executive preferred neither to acquit nor to suspend the Chief Justice, and as an alternative Lord Knutsford asked that the Legislative Council should consider the matter. On 10th April, the Legislature carried, by ten votes to seven, lengthy resolutions moved by Mr. Richardson, which in effect stated that the Chief Justice, in summing up certain cases, had used intemperate language not in keeping with the high dignity becoming to his office, and had shown decided sympathy with the plaintiff in the Gribble case; that, as the West Australian throughout the disagreement with Governor Broome had sided with the Governor, and Mr. Hensman with the Chief Justice, it would have given more assurance had the case been left to Mr. Justice Stone; that the Council saw no reason to impugn His Honour's integrity of purpose, but considered his conduct and language were more the outcome of a warm, impulsive temperament, which led to hasty and unconsidered condemnation; and that, as the community was divided into hostile camps, members were of opinion that peace and harmony could not be hoped for as long as Mr. Onslow continued to occupy the position of Chief Justice. The resolutions were forwarded to the Secretary for the Colonies, and the Chief Justice applied for and received twelve months' leave of absence. He proceeded to England.

This was practically the end of the proceedings. Sir T. Wrenfordsley was appointed Chief Justice for a few mouths, and Mr. Onslow, after remaining in England for some time, returned to his duties in 1891. He was exonerated from the charges preferred against him. The whole trouble was smoothed over and peace reigned again, all the aggrieved parties being apparently satisfied.

The position of Western Australia as a Crown Colony was sometimes mortifying. While other members of the group had