Friday, January 3, 2014

John Douglas, Agent-General for Emigration to Queensland, 1869-1871 (Thesis)

Immigration was critical to Queensland’s success because the young colony had a vast area and a sparse population.  In December 1860, Governor Bowen remarked that the “most pressing need of Queensland is an accession of population to develop the rich and varied resources and capabilities of our vast territory.”[1] 
Queensland’s population at separation from New South Wales in December 1859 was 23,520.[2]  By the end of 1861, there were 30,059, compared with 360,860 in New South Wales, 538,628 in Victoria, 126,830 in South Australia and 89,977 in Tasmania.  Only Western Australia had fewer people (15,593), and there was a pressing need to attract more people to the nascent colony to exploit its resources to generate wealth and prosperity.[3]

Henry Jordan, Queensland agent-general

Accordingly, in late 1860, Henry Jordan was appointed Queensland agent-general to Great Britain, tasked with encouraging immigration to Queensland to aid its growth and development. [4]  This he did by successfully depicting the colony as a ‘workers’ paradise’, and ‘new chums’ flocked to the colony at the rate of a thousand a month, over 50,000 by the end of 1865.[5] 
Jordan’s achievements were spectacular, because net immigration to Queensland for the period 1861-65 was 52,855,[6] against only 11,562 in New South Wales, 5,656 in Victoria, 16,263 in South Australia, and 4,165 in Western Australia.[7]  But, although successful in encouraging immigrants to come to Queensland, Jordan experienced considerable difficulties in performing his duties. 
This was due to a “censorious, pettifogging, and unreasonable attitude” by Queensland authorities, who failed to appreciate the problems besetting Jordan.  These included having to frequently lecture on the benefits of immigration to Queensland; being forced to raise funds in England so that passengers could be adequately equipped according to the regulations; inadequate staff to handle requests for information and associated correspondence; and, being subjected to complaints and accusations of deception from immigrants.[8]
In 1864, the Queensland government abandoned the land-order system of immigration, whereby 15 acres of land could be selected immediately and a further 12 acres after two years, due to its high cost and its inability to create a small land-owning class.  Jordan, as the agent-general, was blamed for this failure[9] and accused of having a private financial arrangement with the shipping line handling the transportation of immigrants to Queensland.[10]  An angry Jordan resigned in 1864 and returned to Queensland to defend himself.[11]  A select committee subsequently cleared him of wrongdoing, but rebuked him for his premature return to the colony![12]
Returning to London, Jordan continued in office until 1866 when the Queensland government, due to the ensuing financial crisis, ceased assisted immigration, cancelled his appointment, and downgraded the London office.[13]  Jordan was bitter over his treatment, and predicted that “my successor ...  will find his task herculean, and to a great extent, necessarily unsuccessful.”[14]  The position of agent-general was not re-introduced until Douglas’s appointment in late 1869, by which time Jordan’s contribution had been recognised and valued, the Brisbane Courier remarking that:
it will take Mr. Douglas a good while to get into working order as effective a system as that of his predecessor.[15]
It had been hoped that Jordan would encourage prospective English yeomen to aid the development of agriculture in the colony, but this was not possible because of the geographical isolation of Queensland and its distance from England compared to Canada and the United States, countries that were also actively encouraging immigration.  Prospective immigrants to Queensland received inducements in the form of land-orders worth £15, whereby 15 acres of land were immediately available for selection with a further 12 acres after two years.[16]  However, those with agricultural experience not only found the unfamiliar conditions daunting, but also had a very real fear of Aboriginal resistance and were not willing to undertake backbreaking and intensive labour when they could simply oversee sheep.[17]
Instead, such men wished to set up business as “their own masters.”[18]  They were materialistic and ambitious, imbued with a strong petit-bourgeois ideology and a striving to succeed.[19]  By 1869, assisted immigration had been suspended for over two years,[20] and it was generally agreed that it should now recommence.[21]  This resulted in the enactment of a new Immigration Bill and Douglas’s appointment as agent-general.[22]

Douglas’s relocation to England

Douglas’s appointment received ringing endorsement from parliament and the press.  In discussing his appointment and recent parliamentary career, the Brisbane Courier neatly encapsulated his strengths, achievements, and the reason for his popularity: “Mr. Douglas has sometimes seemed a very inconsistent politician, but we know of no public man in Queensland who has, on the whole, better preserved and deserved the respect of the public.”[23]
A farewell banquet in the Brisbane Town Hall was held for Douglas on 21 September 1869.[24]  The governor - noting that the Times newspaper in London had written that, “Queensland wanted population and England wanted to get rid of their paupers.  Queensland had plenty of land and England had plenty of people to live upon it,” - hoped that Douglas would send “the proper kind of people.”[25]  In his reply, Douglas endorsed these sentiments, expressed his pleasure at being appointed to the position, and explained why he believed immigration was so important to the development and progress of Queensland:
the pursuit of the happiness which might be found in a free and almost independent community - that happiness which, in this era of the world, might be found by the adaptation of those vast waste countries which God had prepared for the use and benefit of mankind to that purpose.[26]
Douglas’s appointment as agent-general in London saw him return to the land where he was born, bred, and educated.  Nevertheless, his allegiance was now to Queensland, the country he had come to love and call home.[27]  Douglas had come to the colonies to:
combine a pastoral and patriarchal life with the making of a little money, and the chance of visiting the old country when their flocks and herds had increased and multiplied.[28]
However, although unsuccessful as a pastoralist, he did marry and found his calling in life as a politician in the service of his country.  Along the way, he had become an Australian.  Now he was returning to his birthplace, to the land that his compatriots fondly called home, to extol Queensland’s virtues and assist others settle halfway around the world, as he had.
The Douglases continued to be feted prior their departure.[29]  John Douglas, his wife Mary, her daughter, and their servant, left Brisbane on 30 September 1869,[30] and arrived in London on 9 December 1869.[31]  Here Douglas immediately set about making his mark.  He saw himself primarily as the agent-general for Queensland rather than merely for immigration, and accordingly changed the name of the Queensland Government Emigration Office to the Queensland Government Offices. 
Douglas also relocated the office from 2 Old Broad Street to 32 Charing Cross.[32]  The new location, opposite the Admiralty and just above Whitehall, was in the same district as most of the other colonial offices, raising the status of the Queensland office and its agent-general in the eyes of the British authorities.[33]  A portent of things to come, Douglas displayed his independence by not seeking authority or approval from the Queensland government for this action, merely informing it after the event.[34]  What the government in Brisbane thought of this is unknown, but it was the opening salvo in a drama of increasing bitterness unfolding between the government and its agent-general in London.[35]

Agent-general in London

The Queensland government was well aware of the problems Jordan had faced and did not want to see them repeated.  Aware, too, of Douglas’s penchant for following his own wishes, it wanted him to fill the role in a manner best calculated to prevent undue embarrassment or expense to it or the colony.  Accordingly, it issued him with a comprehensive list of instructions.  These instructions were drawn up after Douglas’s appointment and sent to the London office in late December 1869.[36]
The Instructions to the Agent-General for Immigration to Queensland set out in clear and unambiguous terms the responsibilities of the office and contained instructions on the type of emigrants required, inducements to be offered; associated charges; an injunction for Douglas to lecture; and to use only those forms contained in the schedule of the Act.[37]  Before his departure, Douglas had received verbal instructions to terminate the existing shipping contract with Messrs. Mackay, Baines, and Co[38] and this Douglas did shortly after his arrival in London, with six months’ notice given.[39]
Douglas arranged for the printing and distribution of handbills that extolled the virtues of emigration to Queensland, and the cost for a passage for single adult men at £4 (not £8 as the Act stipulated.)[40]  This met with a swift reaction from the Queensland government, who demanded that he “comply strictly with the letter of the Act, until further instructed.”[41]  Further instructions followed informing him that failure to comply with the legislation “will be considered as wholly unauthorised on your part.”[42]
While the charge under the Act was £8, in practice one free passage was granted for each assisted passage.  Instead of continuing this practice, Douglas simply charged everyone £4.  Nevertheless, the government interpreted what to Douglas was a sound administrative arrangement that streamlined existing practices, as a violation of the Act.[43] 
Although two months later Douglas reluctantly adjusted the rate back to £8, that was not the end of the matter.  Six weeks later, he was notified that, as 73 assisted emigrants on the Indus had been charged £4 instead of £8, the difference, some £292, would be deducted from his salary.[44]
Why had Douglas not charged the fee as stipulated in the Act?  The explanation lies in political developments taking place in Queensland at that time.  Douglas vehemently disagreed with the practice of charging £8 per single man.  A man of strong principle, one used to exercising his discretion and getting his own way, he simply ignored the government’s instructions, aware that the colonial secretary, Charles Lilley, a political ally, would support him if necessary.
Douglas’s actions demonstrated the lengths he would go to implement his liberal beliefs and principles.  A man of vision and compassion, he had little time for bureaucrats and their regulations.  He considered legislation to be there to give expression to a government’s programs and reforms, to facilitate the implementation of government policy.  Therefore, as the responsible government official, any legislation at variance with his goals, he simply ignored.  As long as the liberal side of politics remained in power, Douglas - by virtue of his position, influence, and experience - could get away with this unorthodox approach.

Agent-general for the Palmer ministry

However, in April 1870 the Lilley ministry fell, replaced on 3 May by one led by Arthur Hunter Palmer, the new premier cum colonial secretary.[45]  Palmer, who had first entered parliament as member for Port Curtis following Douglas’s move to the legislative council, was a conservative.  He distrusted Douglas, convinced, despite the latter’s explicit denials, that he was still in communication with the ousted Lilley and his erstwhile treasurer, Thomas Blackett Stephens.[46]
This distrust saw relations between Douglas and the government deteriorate rapidly, exacerbated by ongoing problems, many of them petty.  As Douglas later remarked, he now “received short, sharp, thoughtless and reckless telegrams which brought things to a standstill.”[47]  For instance, Douglas received instructions not to “give free passages to any but female domestic servants”[48] while requests to employ an immigration agent in Italy to secure migrants were summarily refused.[49]
Following his arrival in London, Douglas had obeyed instructions and terminated, with six months’ notice, the shipping contract between the Queensland government and Messrs. Mackay, Baines and Co.[50]  Henceforth tenders were to be invited for each shipment of emigrants.[51]  Nevertheless, as Mackay, Baines and Co. was interested in continuing its arrangement with the government, Douglas retained their services.[52]  He did this because he had insufficient funds to enter into new contracts, a condition of which was “payment of the first moiety in cash after the embarkation of the emigrants.”[53]
This arrangement was rejected by the government, which argued that “the first moiety of the passage-money could be paid by drafts on the treasury at thirty days sight.”[54]  Douglas was reluctantly forced to cancel his arrangements with the existing shipping line, despite negotiating, in good faith, an improved service at lower cost.[55]  The government further insisted that he use only “ships classed A1 at Lloyd’s,”[56] but rescinded this instruction when Douglas informed them that no mail steamers met these criteria![57]
Douglas had to field numerous government complaints about medically-unfit passengers including following the return to England of two patients, at government expense, because the medical examination failed to detect that they were suffering from heart disease and epilepsy.[58]  In his defence, Douglas produced detailed testimonials and reports from their employers, householders, surgeon, magistrate and minister, all indicating that these were not pre-existing conditions.[59]
Problems arose over the discovery of three cases of gonorrhoea and syphilis aboard the Flying Cloud, and Douglas was rebuked for allowing these passengers to immigrate to the colony.[60]  An incensed Douglas then cabled this withering reply.
No legal powers exist which would authorise me to secure an effectual personal inspection of the full-paying passengers and the crew.  In the absence of such general powers, I decline to undertake the application of inquisitorial tests, of such a nature as would alone be adequate, to either the free or the assisted emigrants, who, if respectable males, or modest females, would, I trust, decline to accept any favors from the government of Queensland on the condition of being subject to such gross indignities.[61]
A furious Palmer considered these remarks “a gratuitous impertinence, utterly uncalled for.”[62]
Disagreements continued to poison the relationship between the government and its agent-general.  Douglas was chastised for the way he exercised his discretion in arranging payment for the Flying Cloud, sending too many emigrants on one ship,[63] not supplying enough domestic servants,[64] and using the incorrect form when issuing land-order warrants.[65]  To this last criticism, Douglas pointed out that the Act in question prescribed no particular warrant form.[66]
These criticisms were not confined to Douglas, for his predecessor, Henry Jordan, had endured similar difficulties.[67]  Nevertheless, Douglas found these petty criticisms and incessant carping frustrating.  He was responsible to a government, on the other side of the world, which plainly did not appreciate the difficulties he faced in procuring a steady supply of suitable immigrants for Queensland.  Two of Douglas’s immediate successors, Daintree and Macalister, also had these problems, the former being involved in a bribery scandal implicating his staff and the latter having strained relations with his office secretary, Thomas Hamilton, over tender irregularities.[68]  Indeed, the first four Queensland agent-generals all resigned over government misunderstanding, interference, or political considerations, with three departures resulting in government enquiries.[69] 
Although the Lilley government had also appointed Douglas agent for the colony of Queensland replacing the existing crown agents, Palmer rarely called upon him to perform this role.[70]  One of the few exceptions involved Douglas in negotiations with the British and Australian Telegraph Company and the Dutch government over a proposed telegraph line linking Singapore, Java and Queensland, Douglas travelling to The Hague in September 1870 for discussions with the Dutch minister for the colonies.[71]  The government’s refusal to support Douglas consistently in this role was one of the main reasons for his eventual resignation.[72]

German migration

Other factors beyond Douglas’s control also affected the performance of his duties, with the difficulties besetting immigration from Germany a case in point.  Douglas was instructed to arrange 1,500 emigrants from Germany in his first year.[73]  While numerous delays were caused through the imposition of strict conditions by the North German Confederation,[74] the first ship, the Humboldt, finally left Hamburg on 14 July 1870, a few days before the Franco-Prussian War broke out.[75]  The outbreak of hostilities led to a blockade of the river and its port, Hamburg, by the French, resulting in the indefinite stranding of some 900 engaged passengers.[76]
This greatly distressed Douglas, because many of the emigrants were from Switzerland, and could not return home having already disposed of their homes and possessions.  He prevailed on the British Foreign Office to intercede on his behalf, requesting the French government to “allow the departure of the emigrants without vitiating the blockade,” but they rejected his pleas.[77]  The war had a deep personal impact on Douglas, who confided to Lewis Bernays, chairman of the Queensland Commissioners for the International Exhibition to be held in London in 1871.
God knows what will be the events of 1871.  It seems rather like fiddling when Rome is burning to talk of exhibitions when the whole structure of European society is shaken to the foundation.[78]
Douglas experienced this conflict at close quarters.  In Scotland when the war broke out, he immediately sailed for Cologne where, although seeing German troops crossing the Rhine,  he could do nothing to assist the stranded immigrants.[79]  They remained stranded for two months, when the Reichstag was finally able to leave Hamburg, following the ending of the blockade.[80]

Douglas’s resignation

Despite Douglas’s many differences with the Queensland authorities, it was a relatively minor dispute over lecturing that precipitated his resignation.  Jordan was noted for his fine lectures, with the success of the colony’s immigration program in large part due to his oratorical abilities.[81]  Douglas was therefore instructed by Lilley to promote emigration through lectures extolling the benefits of the colony.[82]  However, Douglas ignored this instruction, claiming lecturing was no longer required, for people in England knew about the colony.[83]  He preferred to promote immigration by visiting the principal agencies and publishing handbills and pamphlets.[84]  The government, aware that no lecturing was taking place, instructed Douglas, to commence lecturing forthwith.[85]  This was the ‘final straw’ for Douglas, who promptly resigned.[86]  He had occupied the post for little over a year.
There were three reasons why he resigned: his inability to perform the duties of the office effectively; his non-utilisation in the role of agent for the colony in England;  and his refusal to lecture.[87]  Douglas further informed Palmer that his continuation in the post would lead to him “compromising my own self-respect.”[88]  His resignation was accepted,[89] but he stayed on in the post until 24 April 1871, when Archibald Archer finally replaced him.[90]
Douglas believed he had conscientiously applied himself to the position, under trying circumstances, despite being denied the requisite flexibility and latitude.  As he observed:
Instances innumerable have arisen, and will continue to arise, tending to shew that unless a fair latitude of discretion is allowed to an agent acting in England on behalf of the government, his office must be a thankless one - unsatisfactory both to himself and his principles.[91]
Had Douglas not resigned over the issue of lecturing he could have enjoyed a much longer term in the position.  It is ironic that, while he criticised the government for its inflexible application of the Act and associated instructions, he was equally inflexible on the issue of lecturing.  Despite this, Douglas had successfully delivered to Queensland a steady stream of immigrants from the British Isles and Germany during 1870.[92] 
By acting as the de facto ambassador for Queensland, Douglas had extended the duties and influence of the position,[93] an approach welcomed by the British authorities and sanctioned by the Lilley government.  It was in this capacity that Douglas corresponded with the Colonial Office regarding communications with the colony, the Foreign Office over the French blockade of Hamburg, meeting the president of the Poor Law Board to discuss pauper immigration, and writing to the Times on telegraphic communications.[94]  As Barbara Atkins remarked, Douglas had “recognised and appreciated the need for a more imaginative, adventurous and mature approach.”[95]
Unfortunately, for Douglas, he set a standard the Palmer government refused to countenance.  That Palmer had not appointed him meant the government watched his activities with increasing suspicion and alarm.  They did not want a former opposition cabinet member strutting the world stage as a self-appointed ambassador for their government,[96] and it was only a matter of time before Douglas fell foul of them.  His principles and stubbornness ensured this would be sooner rather than later, but if Palmer thought the matter ended with Douglas’s resignation, he was mistaken.
Douglas and his family left England on 20 May 1871, sailing from Liverpool[97] and arriving in Brisbane on 14 August 1871.[98]  Although Douglas enjoyed his posting in the old country, he considered himself a Queenslander.[99]

Defending his reputation

Shortly after his return, Douglas received a copy of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Executive Council, on 2 March 1871, on the Subject of the Resignation of the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. John Douglas.[100]  Forwarded to Douglas in London in March 1871, it arrived after he had departed.[101]  This minute set out Palmer’s response to Douglas’s letter of resignation, strongly criticising his performance:
It would appear that he imagined, not that he was bound to administer the Immigration Act, but that he has the power to override it, and do exactly as he pleased.[102]
As for Douglas not being utilised as agent for the colony in England, Palmer claimed that Douglas had not been appointed at all, for this role was not explicitly mentioned in the letter of appointment.[103]  However, Palmer was subsequently informed by Douglas’s successor in London, Archibald Archer, that he:
had not been many days here before I found out that the agent-generals as administered by Douglas and in fact by the agents of all the colonies, was more, or at least as much, of a diplomatic character as that of agents for immigration.[104]
Palmer was especially critical of Douglas’s refusal to lecture, considering his behaviour to be an inexplicable dereliction of duty.[105]  Palmer believed that Douglas had accepted the post, “with his mind made up to disobey instructions.”[106]
Determined to defend his good name, Douglas sent a lengthy memo to Palmer strenuously and comprehensively rebutting these accusations.  He was particularly upset that Palmer denied that he had been appointed to the position of agent-general for the colony, for it had been a gazetted position, with official correspondence addressed to him as the agent-general for Queensland.  He also vehemently rejected accusations that he had never agreed to lecture.  Palmer’s reply to Douglas’s memo was dismissive, suggesting that it was Douglas’s “constant aim to make his appointment a diplomatic one.”[107]
Palmer refused to believe that Douglas’s motives were not political and denigrated the latter’s efforts to raise the profile and standing of Queensland in the eyes of the British authorities.[108]  These exchanges soured their personal relationship, Douglas confiding to his son Edward, on Palmer’s death in 1898, that he regarded him as little more than a “glorified bullock driver ... arrogant and haughty in manner.”[109]
Douglas considered Palmer’s remarks provocative, staining his honour, dignity and reputation.  Nevertheless, Douglas may well have let the matter lapse, had not Palmer, several months later, in answering a parliamentary question on immigration, contended that Douglas had:
thought fit to override an Act of parliament by taking £4 as the sum paid by assisted passengers instead of £8, as required by the law.[110]
Douglas, now attempting to resurrect his parliamentary career, had little choice but to respond.  In a letter to the Brisbane Courier in June 1872, he refuted Palmer’s accusations and revealed his anger, frustration and despair:
I served him faithfully, as I was bound to serve him, when … he became my master.  But ‘thy servant is not a dog,’ and I surrendered my office when I found that I could no longer consistently serve the country under such a master … I grudge to him nothing of all he seems to have, yet he will not ‘let me alone,’ and still pursues me with a stupid personal malice. [111]

Select committee established

Douglas then petitioned parliament, detailing his complaints against the premier and asking them to investigate Palmer’s allegations that he had overridden the Act. [112]  This was a serious matter, for Douglas believed that Palmer’s comments dishonoured and discredited both him and the public service.[113]  In his petition, Douglas denied he had acted dishonourably and requested the appointment of a select committee to investigate the matter.[114]
As Douglas had been in the previous Lilley ministry, most of whose members were now in opposition, it was inevitable that events surrounding his petition would become politicised and the subject of heated debate, the more so as his grievance was with the premier and colonial secretary.[115]
Several members in the legislative council endorsed Douglas’s attempts to have parliament investigate the matter, with the presenter of the petition, Eyles Browne, reminding his colleagues that Douglas was requesting that parliament
be his judges between him and the colonial secretary, and the house should not refuse his request.[116]
Only Thomas Murray-Prior and Louis Hope voted against the establishment of a joint select committee to enquire into this matter.[117] 
Opposition member Samuel Walker Griffith championed Douglas’s cause in the legislative assembly.  On Douglas being surcharged £1,400 over discrepancies relating to the fee set for assisted immigrants, Griffith demanded to know why Douglas was not (if he had acted illegally), charged over this matter.[118]
After spirited debate, the legislative assembly agreed to investigate this matter, with four of its members joining the joint select committee.[119]  This committee then interviewed Douglas, his predecessor, Henry Jordan, and Thomas Blackett Stephens, the acting colonial secretary when Douglas received his agent-general commission and associated instructions.[120]  Stephens confirmed that Douglas accepted the position on the understanding that he would be crown agent, resulting in “a notice being sent to the crown agents at home, to discontinue acting for the colony.”[121]
In his evidence, Douglas vigorously and comprehensively rebutted all Palmer’s charges.  He provided evidence that he was the agent-general for the colony as well as agent-general for emigration, quoting from correspondence in which Governor Blackall had informed the secretary of state for the colonies that the colony had only one representative in Great Britain, “the agent-general for emigration.”[122]
It was the non-recognition of this post by Palmer that most angered Douglas and which drove him to clear his name and maintain his honour.  Asked why his instructions had mentioned “agent for the colony” instead of agent-general, Douglas’s comments were revealing:
I did not examine it specially, or take notice.  I had claimed simply to be called agent.  Agent-general is a very long-sounding name, which I really did not care a fig about; but I did care about the reality.[123]
Douglas saw his position as a diplomatic appointment and his focus was on the efficient discharge of his duties.  Concerning monies surcharged against him for undercharging passengers, Douglas passionately defended himself, explaining that he was simply carrying out an existing practice and had discontinued it when instructed by the government to do so.[124]
In defending his refusal to lecture, Douglas informed the committee that he would probably not have accepted the position had he known he would have to lecture.[125]  He saw the post as a diplomatic one, and therefore considered it personally demeaning to have to lecture, preferring a more dignified approach to encouraging migration to Queensland.
Douglas concluded his testimony with a plea for clemency.  He claimed to have put the public good ahead of his own, and if his name was not cleared, then “I shall feel that I can never voluntarily, at any rate, attempt to take my share in public matters again.”
Douglas’s testimony provides an insight into his character not found elsewhere and at variance with his public persona.  Despite many of his letters, speeches, public pronouncements and writings surviving, most were written in the passive tense and couched in the language and conventions of the time.[126]  However, his spoken testimony to the committee was recorded verbatim.  From it emerges an articulate man, quick on his feet, passionate and animated in reply, one who displayed candour and demonstrated a deep understanding of politics and the political process.
In handing down its report, the committee found Douglas had been appointed sole agent of the colony.  While finding that Douglas indeed erred in reducing the amount asked from assisted passengers, it conceded that he maintained the relative proportions of free and assisted passengers, resulting in the Act being more effective.  The committee recommended that the government write off the non-collected funds surcharged on Douglas.[127]
However, they were not so forgiving about Douglas’s refusal to lecture.  He had been instructed to lecture and “no private opinion of his own  ... justified his setting aside that instruction.”  Nevertheless, they did not agree that Douglas had intentionally disobeyed instructions in this regard.[128]
The committee also noted that Douglas:
had great difficulties to contend with in carrying the Act into efficient operation, as, in consequence of the great commercial losses which had been suffered in Queensland, this colony was, at the time of his appointment and arrival in England, in great disrepute.[129]
Thus, Douglas was largely vindicated and exonerated by the committee, which found he was appointed as the sole agent for the colony, and that surcharging him was wrong.  That he had acted incorrectly in this matter would have been of minor concern to Douglas, because he believed he had acted honourably.  Douglas believed that his role was to ensure that enough suitable immigrants came to Queensland, and this he achieved in spite of the Act. 
Douglas felt the same way about lecturing.  He had expanded the colony’s immigration program not through lecturing but by printing and distributing pamphlets and handbills, coupled with extensive travels and discussions with his British agents.  The committee’s recognition of the difficulties and obstacles encountered by him in discharging his duties was therefore especially gratifying.
Although the report was tabled and adopted without dissension in the upper house,[130] it received a very different reception in the lower one.  There, after Griffith moved its adoption, Palmer denigrated the report and its findings and accused Douglas of a personal vendetta against him.  As far as Palmer was concerned, he simply expected “every government officer to do his duty.”[131]  Perhaps, but by this stage there was certainly no love lost between the two political adversaries.
Palmer continued to deny that Douglas had been appointed sole agent for the colony, despite it having been explicitly mentioned in the relevant Government Gazette.  Furthermore, Palmer doubted Douglas’s ability even to act as agent-general for emigration, being of the opinion that he was “fully determined to disobey his orders not to lecture.”[132]
The opposition rallied in support of Douglas, with William Miles stating that this “milk-and-water report” handed down by the committee had prejudiced Douglas’s performance as agent-general.[133]  William Henry Groom, in defending Douglas, considered him “a gentleman of whom any constituency in the colony would be proud to have to represent it.”[134]  He also prophetically observed that Douglas “would yet live to be a thorn in the side of those honorable members who had cast such slurs on his character.”[135]
Although a ‘milk-and-water’ report, it had substantially vindicated Douglas, both in the parliament and in the colony, as this letter to the Brisbane Courier demonstrated:
I cannot understand how the government can make a charge against the late agent-general ...  he was the right man in the right place, having been a long resident in the colonies, and able to give all information from his own experience.[136]
Thus yet another turbulent period in Douglas’s life ended.  On his appointment, he has been feted in Brisbane and had gone to London determined to do justice to the position.  This he did, until a change of government in Queensland made it progressively more difficult through the restrictions and strictures imposed on him.  Nevertheless, given Douglas’s penchant for independence and a stubborn insistence on doing things his way, it is reasonable to assume that, even if there had not been a change of government, there would eventually have been a falling out between him and the authorities.
Returning to Queensland, Douglas had refused to accept the criticisms delivered by government members in relation to his conduct in the position, successfully petitioning for a select committee into the matter.  It delivered a report that, although somewhat hobbled by the bipartisan composition of its members, largely vindicated Douglas, reserving its criticism of him to the relatively minor charge of refusing to lecture.  Exonerated, and his name, reputation and honour upheld, Douglas again pursued a parliamentary career.


[1] Joyce (1978), p. 28
[2] Postmaster General.  “Immigration Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 9, 1869, p. 379. This figure did not include most of the indigenous population.
[3] Wray Vamplew, ed.  Australian Historical Statistics.  (Australians:  A Historical Library.)  Sydney, Fairfax, Syme & Weldon Associates, 1987, p. 26
[4] O’Donohue, p. 59; Lack, pp. 81-82
[5] Fitzgerald, pp. 127 & 305
[6] By 1864, the Queensland population was 61,467 persons, increasing to 99,901 by 1868 and 120,104 persons according to the 1871 census.  (Vrampley, p. 26)
[7] Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics.  Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia Containing Authoritative Statistics for the Period 1901-1920 and Corrected Statistics for the period 1877-1900.  Melbourne, Government Printer, 1921, p. 1142.  Net immigration is the excess of arrivals over departures.
[8] Lack, pp. 81-82
[9] Fitzgerald, p. 127.  Land-orders were worth £15.
[10] O’Donohue, p. 63; Joyce (1978), p. 28
[11] O’Donohue, p. 63
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.  However, Jordan had independently tendered his resignation, which the government readily accepted.  Despite his resignation, James Wheeler continued to remain at 2 Old Broad Street, London, as clerk in charge of the Queensland emigration Office.  (“Correspondence between the Government and the agent-general for emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 125.)  Although the 1866 bank crash was the reason for halting all assisted immigration into the colony, the rate of immigration was also unsustainable.  As Douglas noted: “in 1865 they were introducing into the colony population, by immigration, at the rate of 11,000 souls per annum from Europe.  That was at a time when they had a population of 87,000, and the result of that was that the power of the country to absorb such a large immigration was greatly overtaxed.”  (Postmaster General.  “Immigration Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 9, 1869, p. 380)
[14] Lack, p. 86.  Despite the criticisms of his time in office, Jordan had despatched 85 ships to Queensland conveying 36,063 persons.
[15] Brisbane Courier, 18 September 1869, p. 2
[16] Fitzgerald, p. 127
[17] Ibid.; Mary Pescott.  The Land of Promise:  Images of Australia in Immigrant Propaganda, 1860-1870.  BA Hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1981, p. 48
[18] A. A Morrison, “Queensland:  A Study of Distance and Isolation,” Melbourne Studies in Education, 1960-61, pp. 195-96, quoted in Fitzgerald, pp. 304-5
[19] Fitzgerald., pp. 304-5.  The thriving trade in land-orders evidenced this.  A migrant recounted how, in the early 1870s, on emigrating from England, he and his fellow passengers sold their land-orders: “These grants, by the way, were promptly disposed of to an agent for £7 each on arrival in Brisbane.”  (Frederick Raymond.  Queensland in the Seventies:  Reminiscences of the Early Days of a Young Clergyman.  C.A. Ribeiro and Co., Singapore, 1928)
[20] Despite Douglas’s appointment to the position late in 1869, immigration to Queensland had actually recommenced in 1868.  (Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 129)
[21] In the words of William Thornton, a member of the legislative council, “the time had arrived when there should be a renewal of immigration; and the statistics ... proved, that with immigration, the prosperity of the colony increased.”  (Hon. W. Thornton.  “Immigration Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 9, 1869, p. 387)
[22] This was the Immigration Act of 1869
[23] Brisbane Courier, 31 August 1869, p. 2
[24] Farewell Banquet to the Hon. John Douglas.  Brisbane Courier, 22 September 1869, p. 3
[25] Ibid.   Douglas agreed, for in a letter to the Times shortly after arriving in England, he indicated that he wanted “all classes,” not just poor people.  (John Douglas.  “Emigration.”  The Times, 3 March 1870, p. 6)
[26] Farewell Banquet to the Hon. John Douglas.  Brisbane Courier, 22 September 1869, p. 3.  Douglas expounded further on this at a Masonic banquet in his honour, informing those present that he and his wife “both regretted leaving [and] fervently hoped they might come back and resume their place again.”  (Masonic Banquet.  Brisbane Courier, 5 October 1869, p. 6)
[27] Farewell Banquet to the Hon. John Douglas.  Brisbane Courier, 22 September 1869, p. 3
[28] Torres Strait Pilot and New Guinea Gazette, 28 November 1903.  I assume the patriarchal reference meant he hoped to marry and raise a family in Australia.
[29] Mary Douglas was presented with a silver salver by the governor in recognition of her work with the Diamantina Orphanage, and John Douglas was given a solid gold jewel by the Masonic fraternity and an illuminated address by the All Saint’s Church congregation, which is reproduced at Appendix 3.  (Weekly Epitome, Brisbane Courier, 25 September 1869, p. 5; Brisbane Courier, 27 September 1869, p. 3; Lecture by the Hon. John Douglas.  Brisbane Courier, 28 September 1869, p. 3; Presentation to Mrs. John Douglas.  Brisbane Courier, 5 October 1869, p. 6; Masonic Banquet.  Brisbane Courier, 5 October 1869, p. 6)
[30] “Shipping.”  Brisbane Courier, 1 October 1869, p. 2.  The ship was the Florence Irving.
[31] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 129
[32] Ibid., pp. 130-31.  At 2 Old Broad Street, Douglas had been sharing a room with the emigration clerk on the fourth floor.
[33] Ibid., p. 131
[34] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, pp. 130-31
[35] Ibid., p. 131
[36] Instructions to the Agent-General for Immigration to Queensland.  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, vol 16, 1871, pp. 47-48
[37] Ibid., p. 47.  Among the instructions was that Douglas would “carry out the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1869 and to do all in his power to promote and encourage immigration to Queensland, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 
[38] Ibid.
[39] Correspondence Between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, pp. 129, 135-36.  The termination letter was dated 31 December.
[40] Ibid., p. 132
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid., p. 133
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid., pp. 132-34.  This sum was never paid by Douglas, the debt being written off due to his insolvency in 1872.  (“Report of the Auditor-General on Public Accounts for the Year 1870.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, pp. 442-43)
[45] For more information see H. J. Gibbney, “Charles Lilley:  An Uncertain Democrat.”  In, D. J. Murphy and R. B. Joyce.  Queensland Political Portraits.  Brisbane, University of Queensland Press, 1978, pp. 78-79
[46] J. X. Jobson.  A Biography of Sir Arthur Hunter Palmer.  BA Hons thesis.  University of Queensland, 1960, p. 51
[47] “Mr. Douglas at the Victoria Hall.”  Brisbane Courier, 24 October 1871, p. 3
[48] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 135.  Douglas unsuccessfully protested that this measure would result in immigration to the colony being “considerably diminished.”
[49] Ibid., pp. 136-38
[50] This was due to the Immigration Act of 1864 being repealed, and therefore authority no longer existed to issue either land-orders to ship-owners, or debentures, the two forms of passage money payment under that contract.  (“Instructions to the Agent-General for Immigration to Queensland.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, vol 16, 1871, p. 71)
[51] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 138.
[52] “Correspondence between the Government and the agent-general for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, pp. 139-41
[53] Ibid., p. 141
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid., p. 139
[56] Ibid., p. 141
[57] Ibid., p. 142
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid., pp. 143-44
[60] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 180
[61] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 102
[62] Ibid.  It was left to the clerk of the Queensland executive council, Albert Victor Drury, to couch Palmer’s remarks in more diplomatic terms, tactfully and approvingly noting that, “It appears to the colonial secretary that had it not been for the resignation of the previous day, it is a piece of fine writing which would hardly have been indulged in by Mr. Douglas.”
[63] Ibid., p. 154
[64] Ibid., p. 158
[65] Ibid., p. 155
[66] Ibid.
[67] Lack, pp. 82-83
[68] Ibid., pp. 89-94
[69] Ibid.  While Douglas did receive instructions, these were vague and ill defined, resulting in differences of interpretation.
[70] Queensland Government Gazette, vol 10 no 95, 25 September 1869, p. 1300
[71] See, “Proposed Submarine and Land Telegraph between Singapore and the Australian Colonies.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1870, pp. 417-32.  The telegraph line was never built.
[72] Douglas expressed his disappointment to Palmer as follows, “I am sorry you are going back to the crown agents.  They are very good people, but, whether you retain me here or not, you must have somebody here who aught to be able to do anything you require to be done.  The agents for the other Australian colonies - Vendon, Dutton and Maguire - do everything of that kind.”  (John Douglas to Arthur Palmer, 2 September 1870, quoted in Jobson (1960), p. 51)
[73] “Instructions to the Agent-General for Immigration to Queensland.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, vol 16, 1871, p. 47; “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 131.  Douglas appointed W. Kirchner as his agent for German emigration, based in Frankfurt.
[74]  “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, pp. 160-65
[75] Ibid., p. 164
[76] Ibid., p. 172
[77] Ibid, p. 173
[78]London International Exhibition of 1871.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 121; John Douglas.  “An Australian Nation.”  The Melbourne Review, vol 5 no 17, January 1880, p. 4
[79] “The Quetta Club.”  Torres Strait Pilot and New Guinea Gazette, 12 September 1903; John Douglas to Arthur Palmer, 11 July 1870.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/43
[80] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 179.  However, most of the passengers were from Denmark and Scandinavia, for no German males between six and forty years of age were allowed to leave during the war.
[81] Postmaster General.  “Immigration Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 9, 1869, p. 382
[82] “Instructions to the Agent-General for Immigration to Queensland.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, vol 16, 1871, p. 47
[83] Postmaster General.  “Immigration Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 9, 1869, p. 382
[84] “Report from the Joint Select Committee on the Petition of Mr. John Douglas, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 817
[85] “Correspondence between the Government and the Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1871, p. 181
[86] Ibid., p. 184
[87] Ibid., p.184-85.  “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 104.  In his defence, Douglas later noted that nowhere in the Act is “reference made therein to lecturing as one of his duties,” and therefore any such instructions were invalid as they “appear to have been issued without the authority of the Governor in council.”
[88] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 104
[89] Ibid.
[90] “Resignation of Mr. Archibald Archer as Agent-General for Emigration.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, pp. 107-9
[91] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 103
[92] Ibid., p. 104.  In 1870, Douglas dispatched to Queensland, 2,527 immigrants, comprising 610 full-paying passengers, 1,121 assisted and remittance passengers, and 796 free passengers.  Douglas had proposed to send out an additional 2,000 German immigrants to Queensland but this was abandoned by his successor, Archibald Archer.  (Archibald Archer to Arthur Palmer, 19 May 1871.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/43)
[93] Barbara Atkins.  The Problem of Representation of Australia in England:  The Origins and development of the Australian Agencies-General during the Nineteenth Century.  MA thesis, University of Melbourne, 1959, p. 118.  She is better known as Barbara Penny.
[94] Ibid.  John Douglas.  “Telegraphic Communication.”  The Times, 14 January 1871, p. 10
[95] Atkins, p. 122
[96] Ibid., p. 121
[97] Archibald Archer to Arthur Palmer, 19 May 1871.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/43
[98] The Douglas family first sailed to New York, where they undertook an extensive rail journey across America to San Francisco.  They then returned to Queensland, via Honolulu, New Zealand and Sydney; a taxing voyage involving a “great knocking about.”  (“Report from the Royal Commission on Railway Construction in Queensland:  Minutes of the Evidence …” pp. 6-9.  Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 1872; Brisbane Courier, 15 August 1871, p. 2; John Douglas to Thomas Phillips, 3 September 1871.  Aborigines Protection Society Papers.  Australian Joint Copying Project (AJCP), M2426, C39/102; John Douglas to Frederick Chesson, 3 September 1871.  Aborigines Protection Society Papers.  Australian Joint Copying Project (AJCP), M2427, C133/15; John Douglas to Arthur Palmer, 7 August 1871.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/68.)
[99] As Douglas wrote to an English colleague, “after all the wanderings we are glad to find ourselves at home [Brisbane] of our trusty old friends in the country where we have shared many happy years.”  (Douglas to Thomas Phillips, 3 September 1871.  Aborigines Protection Society Papers.  Australian Joint Copying Project (AJCP), M2426, C39/102)
[100] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 102
[101] Ibid., p. 103
[102] Ibid.
[103] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 103
[104] Archibald Archer to Arthur Palmer, 19 May 1871.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/43
[105] “Additional Correspondence between the Government and the Late Agent-General for Emigration, Mr. Douglas.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 103
[106] Ibid.
[107] Ibid. pp. 103-5
[108] Ibid., p. 105
[109] John Douglas to Edward Douglas, 26 March 1898.  Douglas Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 89-3/B/2(B)/6
[110] Brisbane Courier, 13 June 1872, p. 3: Archibald Archer to Arthur Palmer, 19 May 1871.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/43
[111] “Mr. Douglas’s Explanation.”  Brisbane Courier, 18 June 1872, p. 3
[112]“Late Agent-General for Emigration.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 27 June 1872, pp. 418-24
[113] “Mr. John Douglas.  “Late Agent-General for Emigration.  (Petition.)”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 737
[114] Ibid.
[115] “Late Agent-General for Emigration.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 27 June 1872, p. 419
[116] Hon. E. I. C. Browne.  “Late Agent-General for Emigration.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 27 June 1872, pp. 423-5
[117] Ibid.  Members of the committee appointed from the legislative council were Thomas Murray-Prior, Henry George Simpson, Henry Bates Fitz and Eyles Irwin Caulfield Browne as chairman.  (“Report from the Joint Select Committee on the Petition of Mr. John Douglas, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 802)
[118] “Mr. John Douglas.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 4 July 1872, p. 499
[119] “Report from the Joint Select Committee on the Petition of Mr. John Douglas, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 805.  The legislative assembly members appointed by ballot were Samuel Griffith, Charles James Graham, Robert Ramsay and Edward Wienholt.  Murray-Prior and Ramsay took the government line, both being in the Palmer Ministry.  Griffith and Browne, as members of the opposition, supported Douglas.  Fitz and Simpson had spoken in favour of establishing the committee.  Graham, the member for Clermont, was new to the parliament, while Wienholt, a squatter representing Western Downs, supported the Palmer ministry.  It was therefore not surprising that the committee’s findings would not be unanimous.
[120] “Report from the Joint Select Committee on the Petition of Mr. John Douglas, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, pp. 806, 808-10 & 830
[121] Ibid., p. 831
[122] Ibid., p. 812
[123] Ibid., p. 814
[124] Ibid., pp. 816-17
[125] Ibid., pp. 820-21.  Several years later, the editorial writer for the Brisbane Courier made this sardonic observation in connection with Douglas’s refusal to lecture; “Mr. Douglas has a considerable gift of oratory, and (except during the time when he was specially committed to exercise it in the mother-country for our benefit) has generally availed himself of his opportunities for displaying his powers.”  (Brisbane Courier, 23 April 1875, p.2)
[126] In the case of his parliamentary utterances, they are paraphrased by third parties.
[127] “Report from the Joint Select Committee on the Petition of Mr. John Douglas, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.”  Queensland Legislative Council Journals, 1872, p. 807
[128] Ibid.
[129] Ibid.
[130] “The Late Agent-general for Emigration.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 12 August 1872, p. 840
[131] The Colonial Secretary.  “Petition.  (Mr. John Douglas.)”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 15 August 1872, p. 889
[132] The Colonial Secretary.  “Petition.  (Mr. John Douglas.)”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 15 August 1872, p. 889
[133] Mr. Miles.  “Petition.  (Mr. John Douglas.)”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 15 August 1872, p. 890; Thomas Blackett Stephens believed this occurred because the committee was “appointed by ballot, and they all knew that committees appointed in that way were packed committees.”  (Mr. Stephens.  “Petition.  (Mr. John Douglas.)”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 15 August 1872, p. 890)
[134] Mr. Groom.  “Petition.  (Mr. John Douglas.)”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 15 August 1872, p. 890
[135] Ibid.
[136] “The Charges against Mr. Douglas.”  Brisbane Courier, 29 August 1872, p. 5