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

This page needs to be proofread.
141
141

MAJOR ROSS. PHILLIP. There had been a coart-martial (March 1788) on one soldier for striking another, and Ross put Teucli, the President, and the oflScers under ** arrest, for paBsiiig what they call a sentence . . . of such a nature as , . , tends greatly to the subversion of all military digcipline.*' Phillip, after calm efforts to arrange matters, and succeed- ing only 80 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 mider arrest, and only one would he left for duty,'* if a general court were held. Ross admitted that *' in our then situation** a general court-martial could not he granted, hut he com- plained 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 Koss, Flnllip had issued a warrant for a com-t-martial on an officer, for ** neglect of duty and contempt and disrespect" to Boss. The *Hhirteen 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 Higli Admiral of Great Britain. , . . They declined sitting (Flnllip wrote) under the Act of Parliament marie for the Army, He ordered a *' court of impiiry into the particulars of the charge/' intending, if they should find sufficient grounds, to appoint another court of inquiry to examine fully — *Mvhich was the only means I had of doing justice, as no court-martial could be held." Again the Governor was foiled. The court of inquiiy 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 ColliiiSj the Judge-Advocate, had doubted whether he could administer the requked oath to the officers, thirteen of whom in thek turn signed a document statmg that they held themselves amenable to the annual Act for the regula-^ tion of Marine Forces, and the Articles oi^ai> aiii, tiket^e