were admitted, however, and probably Bent's opinion, though unfounded, was the one generally held. Macquarie approved of Garling's behaviour as Judge-Advocate so much as to recommend that his appointment should be made permanent.[1]
He had, however, neither the standing nor education to fit him for such a post, and in any event other circumstances had made such a course impossible.
Ellis Bent's letter criticising the new patent and Macquarie's administration[2] reached England in June, 1815. In December the Governor's despatch of February, 1815, which described the dispute over the Port Regulations, was received. The Secretary of State addressed a reply to Bent on the 11th December, 1815.
"I should," he wrote, "willingly have taken your observations into consideration if there had been any intention … of remodelling the charter … so lately promulgated." Bent's commission also must remain unaltered, for "The Colony did not appear to His Majesty's Government sufficiently advanced to admit of withdrawing that appearance of military restraint which had been found necessary in its first foundation, and which the composition of its population had rendered it indispensable subsequently to maintain. The continuance therefore of a judicial officer who bore a commission exclusively military, and who, though a military officer, was by the charter placed above the civil judge, appeared to have many advantages with a view to the maintenance of that due subordination in the settlement upon which its welfare depends."[3]
Bent's proposal to register the Governor's regulations in the courts was opposed as "tending to give but little if any additional publicity … while it tends to encourage an opinion that the sanction of the court is necessary to give validity to the acts of the Governor".
His conclusion conveyed a warning. "There could not exist a greater misfortune," he wrote, "to a settlement of so peculiar a nature … than a spirit of resistance, or anything
- ↑ D. 2, 24th February, 1821. R.O., MS.
- ↑ i.e., letter of October, 1814. R.O., MS.
- ↑ It appears from the foregoing pages that the military commission of Judge-Advocate had so far created nothing but confusion, and had not in the least fulfilled the objects for which, according to Lord Bathurst, it was retained.
