Page:History of Australia, Rusden 1897.djvu/169

There had been a court-martial (March 1788) on one soldier for striking another, and Ross put Tench, the President, and the officers under "arrest, for passing what they call a sentence . . . of such a nature as . . . tends greatly to the subversion of all military discipline." Phillip, after calm efforts to arrange matters, and succeeding only so far as to maintain respect from all, deemed a general court-martial impracticable, and ordered the officers to return to their duty. Five officers were under arrest, and only one would be left "for duty," if a general court were held. Ross admitted that "in our then situation" a general court-martial could not be granted, but he complained bitterly to Stephens, Secretary to the Admiralty, and said that unless some decisive step is taken by their Lordships to put a stop to the present dissension and the restoring subordination"—no commanding officer could carry on the service."

In October 1788 the whole framework of the society was in jeopardy. At the request of Ross, Phillip had issued a warrant for a court-martial on an officer, for "neglect of duty and contempt and disrespect" to Ross. The "thirteen senior officers, when assembled, declared that they could not sit as members of a general court-martial under that warrant, being as a part of His Majesty's Marine Forces amenable only to the authority of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain. . . . They declined sitting (Phillip wrote) "under the Act of Parliament made for the Army." He ordered a court of inquiry into the particulars of the charge," intending, if they should find sufficient grounds, to appoint another court of inquiry to examine fully—" which was the only means I had of doing justice, as no court-martial could be held." Again the Governor was foiled. The court of inquiry reported that they could have officiated if called upon before the application for a court-martial; but, under the circumstances, were precluded. It transpired that Collins, the Judge-Advocate, had doubted whether he could administer the required oath to the officers, thirteen of whom in their turn signed a document stating that they held themselves amenable to the annual Act for the regulation of Marine Forces, and the Articles of War, and, there-