attempted coercion of the chief justice. The position of the
government was one of considerable embarrassment. It was the
unquestionable right of those affected to oppose the execution of
illegal ordinances; but no blame would have rested with the governor had
he amended them without removing the land-marks of the colonial
constitution.

A minute acquaintance with colonial history would justify the belief
that appeal to Downing-street against the conduct of governors is
utterly futile. When the dispute is between persons high in office the
established policy does not predicate the result; but when a mere
colonist complains he will find no precedent in Australian experience to
cheer him in his task. Gross instances of oppression have not
infrequently occurred; but in the Australian journals of half a century
no example is recorded of a governor's recall on such grounds, or of
such a censure on his conduct as might influence the habits of colonial
rulers. An opposite course would be inconvenient--perhaps dangerous. As
a choice of evils, it is better that the colonists should despair of
redress than to encourage the discontented to harrass the representative
of the crown. A result so invariable, however, proves that a
colonial-office cannot protect the Australian people. This futility of
appeal is more striking when the local authorities are protected by a
laborious despatch writer. The subtle arrangement of facts and
inferences suggests without appearing to dictate the judgment of the
office. These papers first fall into the hands of subordinate officials,
who feel a natural antipathy to colonists, whose established character
is turbulent, rapacious, and democratic. In the multiplicity of
business, comprehending the affairs of forty colonies, the responsible
minister can know little of details, and that little he must rapidly
forget. Thus, when a question is proposed, he asks time to refresh his
memory. A pungent passage or epithet, wholly irrelevant to the real
merits of the dispute, is drawn from these documents. It was thus when
the quarrel between the executive and judges was debated in the house.
The minister, having read in a despatch that the decision of the judge
would disorganise the body of law, represented the colony as a scene of
turbulence, when not a single step had been taken but the courts of
Westminster would have approved. But the house was equally ill informed.
It readily acquiesced: the conversation d