THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM. 59 



against whose decision the appeal itself was made. 1 In the 

 second place, if either side wished to appeal further and to 

 carry the case to the Privy Council, the expense and delay were 

 such as to make a creditor ready to accept any compromise, 

 and thus to put a premium on sharp practice and vexatious 

 proceedings. 2 



In early days the Civil Court had been occupied by small 

 matters only, and to such a summary procedure was applicable. 

 But by 1810 the causes had grown in complexity and in amount. 

 Trained lawyers were necessary to expound the suits brought 

 before it. But the Colony could only provide attorneys from 

 the convict ranks. At first Ellis Bent, with the horror of a man 

 who held high the honour of his profession, had determined to 

 bring to an end their pollution of his Court. Realising, however, 

 that such a course would have inflicted real injury on the parties, 

 he gave way, 3 and drew up a Rule by which a special permission 

 to plead might be given by the Court in each case. The 

 attorney had, however, to exhibit a written instrument "duly 

 executed by the person in whose behalf he shall be authorised 

 to appear," and to lodge with the chief clerk a certificate from 

 the Governor's Secretary declaring him a free inhabitant of the 

 territory. 4 Under this regulation some emancipists, of whom 

 George Crosley was the most prominent, engaged in lucrative 

 practices. 



In this Court a convict could neither sue nor be sued. 

 According to Bligh this was one of "the old-standing regula- 

 tions of the Colony ". 5 It imposed a real hardship, for many of 

 the convicts, and especially the ticket-of-leave men, entered 

 freely into business contracts. Indeed it cut both ways, as 

 may be seen from Crosley's case. When Dr. Harris was 



1 Of course the two magistrates in the Civil Court could have given a verdict 

 in which the Judge-Advocate did not concur. In practice, however, this never 

 occurred. 



2 D., 13, 23rd November, 1812, Bathurst to Macquarie. R.O., MS. 



3 See his letters of 1814 and 1815 to Lord Bathurst, especially that dated 

 ist July, 1815. R.O., MS. 



4 Rule of the Court of Civil Jurisdiction, S.G., 5th October, 1812. "Free 

 inhabitant " included those free by servitude or pardon. Parties might still appear 

 in person if they wished to. 



5 Evidence before C. on T., 1812. There is no such regulation to be found 

 in the colonial records. It was, however, the accepted custom of the Courts 

 and founded on the law of England. 



