THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIARY. 219 



attempted to address the court. The judge declared that he 

 had been heard already, and after a hot dispute he was forced 

 to desist Bent then pointed out to the court that the petitions 

 of Eager and Chartres were inadmissible as neither of them had 

 ever been admitted as attorneys. The issue was thus narrowed 

 and the case of Crosley alone remained in question. Bent 

 stated his determination not to admit him or any persons of 

 his description. Broughton was undecided about Crosley, but 

 would not exclude all such persons. Riley concurred in this. 

 The judge made a violent speech, flinging accusations against 

 the good faith and the characters of the two magistrates on the 

 Bench beside him. As soon as the court adjourned Riley and 

 Broughton drew up a report of the whole affair for the Gover- 

 nor. They refused to sit with Bent again, and resigned their 

 appointments as members of the Supreme Court. But the 

 Governor refused to accept their resignation and the court met 

 again on 25th May. A few minutes' talk in the judge's 

 chambers showed that no essential change had been brought 

 about by the adjournment. Broughton was more eager than 

 before to express his views, and signified his intention of making 

 a speech in court. Bent proposed that further discussion 

 should cease until His Majesty's pleasure be known. The case 

 of Crosley, which the magistrates had considered a doubtful 

 one the week before, might stand over, and as Garling would 

 soon arrive no inconvenience need be suffered. The com- 

 promise was a fair one and should have been at once accepted. 

 The fact that it was not was due to Bent's violence on the 

 1 8th May, and Macquarie's zealous encouragement of the 

 magistrates after his return from the country. 1 



When this moderate proposal was refused and Broughton 

 persisted in his intention to address the crowd in the court- 

 room, Bent refused to open the proceedings at all and sent his 

 clerk to adjourn the sitting, for without the chief judge the 

 court could do nothing. At first the two members declined 

 to adjourn and threatened to commit the clerk to gaol. Finally 

 they gave in, and the ridiculous scene came to an end. 



The Supreme Court never again sat under the presidency 



1 This is quite clear from the despatches of Macquarie, especially D. 4 of 1815, 

 Bent's letter of ist July, 1815. R.O., MS. 



