Entrusting
Douglas with the honour of announcing the new ministerial arrangements in
parliament clearly indicated that the government needed Douglas
more than he needed them, for he was by now a very popular politician, with a
well-deserved reputation for honesty and integrity. It was therefore in the new government’s
interest to have him onside. However,
although Douglas’s penchant for independence, coupled with a tendency to speak
his own mind, greatly concerned Lilley, nevertheless, the latter correctly
deduced that having Douglas onside was
preferable to having him in opposition.
After all, it was Lilley, who in March 1866 had given Douglas
his first ministerial position.
The
best way to keep Douglas onside was to include
him in the ministry. However, this was
fraught with danger, because Fitzgerald, who Douglas had so recently savaged,
was colonial treasurer, and Macalister, who had had disagreements with Douglas
over the East Moreton election, was minister
for lands and works. Nevertheless, the
position of postmaster-general was vacant, and it was to Douglas
that Lilley turned. Douglas ,
not considered a candidate, was, to the surprise of many, given this position.[4]
He was also appointed to the legislative
council to represent and lead the government there.[5] Political
necessity can make for strange bedfellows and given Douglas ’s
recent savage criticism of his colleagues, few were stranger than this.[6]
In
summing up this episode, the Brisbane
Courier concluded with some observations on Douglas ’s
political career, the impact of his recent parliamentary behaviour, and his
future prospects in the Lilley ministry:
The day of Mr. John Douglas’s influence as a leading
politician has passed away, and we fear is not likely to return …owing to some
surprising exhibitions of indiscretion … He can no longer make or mar a
government; he will not help an iota to keep the present ministry in office,
unless his wisdom in council greatly surpasses his judgement in debate.[7]
[1] The Colonial Treasurer.
“Resignation of the Ministry.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 8,
1869, pp. 75-76
[2] Mason, p. 106; John Douglas.
“Change of Ministry.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 8,
1869, p. 79; “Ministerial Changes.” Brisbane Courier, 26 November 1868 , p. 2; Brisbane 1 December 1868 , p. 4. The announcement of a Lilley
government was treated with dismay by some conservative sections of the
electorate. For instance, this
observation by Walter Cunningham Hume, a Darling Downs surveyor with marked
squatter sympathies: “such a set of wretches never sat in a cabinet before, and
it’s to be hoped will not again.” As for
the members of the ministry; he portrayed Lilley as a “confirmed drunkard,”
Macalister “a clever but totally unscrupulous man, also given to drinking too
much,” Taylor, “a perfect beast in every way,” Stephens, “a double faced
politician who nobody appears to like,” and Hodgson, “a confirmed humbug.” Douglas got
off relatively lightly, Hume labelling him “an honest but unwavering and
misguided man.” (Nancy Bonin, ed. Katie Hume on the Darling Downs : A Colonial
Marriage. Letters of a Colonial Lady,
1866–1871. Toowoomba, Darling Downs
Institute Press, 1985, p. 177)
[3] “Ministerial Changes.” Brisbane Courier,
26 November 1868 ,
p. 2; Brisbane 1
December 1868 , p. 4
[4] Brisbane 1
December 1868 , p. 4
[5] Brisbane 10
December 1868 , p. 2; Queensland Government Gazette, vol 9 no
120, 11 December 1868, p. 1481
[6] Brisbane 10
December 1868 , p. 2
[7] Ibid.
