Tuesday, May 19, 2015

John Douglas and his marriage to Sarah Douglas in 1877

Douglas’s private life exploded into the spotlight towards the end of 1877, the details salaciously splayed across the broadsheets of the colony.  This ‘scandal’ rocked the country and destroyed any hopes he may have entertained of a knighthood or governorship.  Its importance here lies not only in demonstrating the kind of man Douglas was, but also in illustrating how the contemporary sources illuminated and informed social standards, mores, and behaviour of society in the Australian colonies to a degree that was rarely observable in the public domain.  Victorian sensibilities and defamation laws usually precluded the airing of high-class ‘dirty linen’ in public.[1]

The ‘scandal’ concerned Douglas’s relationship with Sarah Hickey following the sudden death of his wife, Mary, on 23 November 1876.  Cecilia Douglas, Sarah Hickey’s daughter-in-law, wrote in her memoirs that Douglas, by this time a widower, first met Sarah when she was a governess on a station property somewhere in the colony.[2]  However, contemporary accounts suggest otherwise, that Sarah came to live in the Douglas household, probably as his housekeeper, on the recommendation of Sister Bridget Conlon of the All Hallows Convent in Brisbane.

Cecilia Douglas described Sarah as an Irish-Spaniard, black-eyed and black-haired, very good looking, tall, and possessed of a flashing smile.  It was said that she held herself like a queen.  But she could also be ruthless, hard as granite, fiery-tempered and utterly unpredictable.[3]  Moreover, when her temper was stoked by alcohol, as it all too frequently was in later years, rage and violence often resulted.

Whenever and however they met, and in what capacity she came into his life - he the 48-year-old premier of Queensland, aristocrat, devout Anglican, widower in mourning for his beloved recently departed - she a beautiful, highly intelligent, fiery and headstrong 33-year-old Irish Catholic who had once intended to become a nun – it soon turned into something deeper and stronger.  For by February 1877, barely two months after the death of Mary Douglas, Sarah was pregnant.

This of itself was perhaps not that unusual.  Men in high places sometimes did have affairs and relationships and sired illegitimate children of those in their employ.  Moreover, although the titillating details may have endlessly circulated about the colony fuelled by gossip and a pungent whiff of scandal, they were never officially acknowledged and certainly never recorded.  As a contemporary wrote of the colonial press:

In all the papers, more or less, ‘social columns’ are available for those who wish to make public display of their frocks and entertainments, but the old-fashioned lover of domestic privacy may count on being left alone.[4]

However, the circumstances surrounding Sarah were most unusual.  To understand just how unusual this was, it is worth exploring the influence of class, religion and social standing in the Australian colonies.  Far from being an egalitarian society, class distinctions and divisions were alive and well in Queensland.  People knew their ‘place’ in society, with those from a higher class rarely fraternising with those below them.[5]  Charles Dilke, who visited Australia around 1867, recalled how

a government clerk in one of the colonies told me that the last three ministers at the head of his department had been so low in the social scale, that my wife could not visit theirs.[6]

Thorvald Weitemeyer, a Danish emigrant and a carpenter, described his experiences in Brisbane in the late 1870s, noting; “the greatest possible social distinction between such people as, say a bank clerk, or even a grocer’s clerk, and a tradesmen or a labourer; so it is between a music-teacher, shopgirl, dressmaker or a servant.”[7]  He also observed how the life of a servant in Brisbane was far from pleasant, for they were overworked, used by their employers as “a coat-of-arms wherewith to set themselves off,” and treated as “slaves and fools.”[8]  There was little intermingling or marriage between working and middle classes, and even less between the working classes and the nobility and gentry.[9]

As a station governess, Sarah would have inhabited an entirely different social order and class than that of a servant.  Governesses most sought after were those who had been teachers in Britain, and these included Sarah.  In addition, many governesses married lesser squatters.[10]  However, at the time of her employment in the Douglas household, Sarah was not a teacher or a governess, but a housekeeper.

Douglas, having commenced a relationship with his housekeeper that resulted in her becoming pregnant, would have been keenly aware of the choices facing him, and the implications flowing from whatever course of action he took.  He could banish Sarah, as was the usual practice for men in these situations, or he could marry her and face the consequences.  Douglas was a man who held true to his principles and followed his conscience, and his actions in this matter were no different.  Ever the gentleman, he acted honourably and did what few in his position did.  On 30 July 1877, James Quinn, the Catholic Bishop of Brisbane, married John Douglas and Sarah Hickey in a private wedding ceremony.[11]

Moreover, John Douglas did not marry Sarah Hickey primarily out of duty or pity, or even because his principles and conscience told him it was the right thing to do.  Thy married because they loved each other.  They may have come from different religions, social strata and backgrounds, but these could be overcome.  Nor was their adherence to different faiths an insurmountable barrier.  Although he was a devout Anglican and she a fervent Catholic, Douglas had been for many years a High Anglican parishioner, [12] and was no sectarian.[13]  Class and social status concerns could also be rationalised away.  Born and raised an aristocrat, he had a lifelong belief in liberalism and the goodness of his fellow man.  She, for her part, was an Irish nationalist who had no time for the English ruling classes.[14]  Not only was she beautiful, but judging by her extant letters and the observations of those who knew her, also his intellectual equal.[15]

That both sides compromised is without question.  What Sarah thought of his freemasonry can only be guessed at,[16] while he knew that she would be considered unacceptable, for ‘behaviour mattered’ in the social circles in which he frequented.[17]  Perhaps they believed love would conquer all, but the reality was that over time these compromises became harder to manage, tearing at the ties that bound their marriage and resulting in sadness, bitterness, anger and ultimately separation. 

Their first son, Edward Archibald Douglas, was born on 2 November 1877 and baptised a Catholic.[18]  The marriage, being a private ceremony, was not reported in the press.  Neither was Edward’s birth.  However, Bishop Quinn failed to register the marriage and he was subsequently prosecuted, this being an offence under the Marriage Act of 1864.  Quinn was fined £10 after pleading guilty.[19]  The conviction was significant in that the press could now publish the details if it so wished.  Even so, it would have taken a bold and brave newspaper editor to print what would have been considered by many unprintable.[20]  The main opposition paper, the Telegraph, quick to seize any opportunity to discredit Douglas and his ministry, took up the challenge.[21]  An article appeared that same evening, presenting the bald facts but eschewing additional detail or comment. [22]  Nevertheless, the story was out, presenting a unique opportunity for the colonial press to report, comment and editorialise on something that was rarely, if ever, written about.

The news was scandalous on several levels.  Sarah was an Irish Catholic.  She was pregnant with his child at the time of the marriage, and not only was she from a lower social class, but Douglas had employed her in a domestic capacity.  Any one of these factors was enough for her to be judged utterly unsuitable to be his wife, and so news of the union was received with a mixture of astonishment and disbelief.  Given that Douglas was the incumbent premier of Queensland, it is hardly surprising, considering the social standards and mores of late Victorian society, that when details of the marriage were made public, it was so fervently discussed. 

In analysing public reaction to the marriage, one also needs to take into account the esteem and affection still held for Douglas’s recently departed first wife Mary.  As one paper eloquently stated following her death:

The name of Mrs. Douglas has become quite a household word in the mouths of the people of Brisbane.  The deceased lady has been more or less connected with every charitable institution in the city.  She initiated the Diamantina Orphanage and was very prominent in the organisation of the servant’s home and other kindred institutions in this locality. [23]

If Sarah had married John a couple of years after Mary’s death, then the union may have been more palatable to the public.  However, Mary was ‘not even cold in her grave’ when Sarah fell pregnant.

Other papers followed the Telegraph’s lead, albeit somewhat tentatively.[24]  An illustrative example of how the press handled the delicate sensitivities involved is provided by the Rockhampton Bulletin.  It first ran an article the day after the court case, merely reporting, “Bishop O’Quinn was fined £10 and costs in the police court to-day for neglecting to register a marriage in accordance with law,”[25] with no mention being made as to whose marriage it was.[26]  However, five days later it reprinted the Telegraph article verbatim, under the headline “The Premier’s Marriage,” with an accompanying article outlining its reasons for publishing, as “In regard to the public actions of public men, we have always held that the truth should be told impugn it whoso list.”[27]  The following week the paper finally editorialised on the matter:

The fact of the premier’s private marriage on 30th July last was made public last week through the prosecution of the officiating minister – the Right Rev. Dr. Quinn – for breach of the law in neglecting to register the marriage, which, it has also transpired, has already proved fruitful.  The transaction has given rise to endless gossip throughout the colony.[28]

Several newspapers, mainly those aligned with the liberal side of politics, remained defiantly and determinedly mute.  The Brisbane Courier never once mentioned, reported on, or editorialised about the marriage and the scandal enveloping it and the government.  Despite this, the paper reported on the other cases that took place in the same court on the same day.  Other papers, including the Queenslander (the weekly edition of the Brisbane Courier), and the Patriot declined to print the details.[29]  Other reportage was supportive and sympathetic, with a correspondent in the Queensland Times observing that:

The Premier has been having a rough time of it lately in the papers one way and another.  His private and public affairs are both made public property.[30]

The Cooktown Courier aptly summed up the prevailing mood:

Why Mr Douglas got married the way he did, is, I fancy, his business – although of course the fact is made the foundation for a pretty superstructure of yarns, and it has set the tongues of all the old women of both sexes wagging furiously.[31]

The Queensland Evangelical Standard, a Brisbane Protestant paper, ignored Douglas, attacked the press for inaccurate reporting, and comprehensively condemned the Catholic bishop who married them.[32]  The paper asserted that the marriage certificate, rather than being sent in a day late as claimed in court, had not been sent at all.

An untruth was at somebody’s instigation deliberately uttered in a police court to palliate an offence to which the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church had pleaded guilty.[33]

Why was Bishop Quinn prosecuted, and why was it subsequently reported in the colonial press?  Although the relevant official records have not survived, a contemporary Catholic paper, The Australasian, detailed what it considered were the reasons for pursuing the bishop.

The registrar-general is an ultra-Protestant of the aggressive type, a shining light at tea fights and so forth.[34]  Consequently his soul lusted to get at the R. C. bishop, and Mr. Douglas being far away (although telegraphed after) at Thursday Island, he wrote demands for explanation to the ecclesiastic, who took no further notice than sending his chaplain, the Rev. Dr. Cani, to explain.  The Registrar-General, however, longed to see the proud prelate humiliate himself and bow down before him, and the end was that the Right Rev. Dr. Quinn, Roman Catholic Bishop of Brisbane, was ignominiously summoned to appear at the Brisbane Police Court for neglect to register, and by that lofty tribunal was fined £10.[35]

It is difficult, well over a century later, to determine the veracity of this attack against the registrar-general, Henry Jordan.  There is no extant evidence to indicate any animosity or antipathy towards Douglas.  Both served their country in London, where they vigorously promoted immigration to the colony, both strongly opposed the South Sea Islander labour trade, and both men aligned themselves with the liberal side of politics during their long parliamentary careers.

However, the religious accusations against Jordan are more convincing, for he was a devout Methodist.[36]  The son of a Wesleyan minister, he was sent by the Wesleyan Missionary Society to South Australia, where he performed missionary duties at the Mission for Aboriginals at Mount Barker before moving to Queensland.[37]  Moreover, he had clashed with Bishop Quinn before.  As the Queensland immigration officer in London from 1861, Jordan was responsible for encouraging immigrants, a task he energetically pursued. 

Quinn believed the government’s immigration policies discriminated against the Irish, and so he took the unusual step of setting up his own Irish immigration scheme, founding the Queensland Immigration Society in 1862.[38]  From 1862-65, when the scheme ended, some 4,000 Irish Catholics entered the colony under the auspices of Quinn’s society.[39]  Quinn’s sponsored migration, while receiving the co-operation of the Queensland government, eventually ceased following strong opposition in the colony, especially from the press and Protestant sects,[40] with one Baptist minister attacking the scheme as a “plan to bring £4,000 worth of Roman Catholic wives to Queensland.”[41]  Nowhere was the opposition stronger than from Jordan, who not only opposed all private migration organisations, but also objected to the government’s approval of Quinn’s society.  Jordan argued that as agent for the colony he should supervise all immigration arrangements, and claimed that Quinn’s scheme would open the door to all the worst characteristics of “bounty migration and pauper traffic.”[42] 

The Australasian also commented on why the Telegraph had printed the news of Quinn’s conviction for failing to register Douglas’s marriage in time.  It contended that one of the directors of the Telegraph, a grocer, had recently lost a contract for supplies to the Woogaroo Lunatic Asylum in Brisbane to a Catholic competitor and believed that this was due to “irregular pressure by ‘the clergy’” on Douglas owing to the “existing peculiarly intimate relations.”  The director then allegedly pressured the Telegraph editor “to publish facts damaging to the Premier, in order to avenge the grocer’s grudge against that most unfortunate gentleman.”[43]

Again, while it is impossible to confirm this colourful scenario, the truth was probably less dramatic, for the Telegraph, being a supporter of the parliamentary opposition, in all likelihood printed the story in order to embarrass Douglas and his government.

While sectarianism is a theme intertwined throughout Australia’s nineteenth century history, it was less prevalent in Queensland than the other Australian colonies during this period, because Catholics in Queensland had a stronger sense of involvement in colonial growth and progress than elsewhere.  They were also more integrated into the colony’s social fabric, due mainly to Queensland lacking the entrenched and dominant Protestant ascendancy of the other colonies.[44]  However, the corollary to this state of affairs was that it could have made Protestants even more concerned about the role and influence of Catholics in the colony.  The fact that Douglas was a High Anglican may have exacerbated the concerns of Low Church Anglicans and Protestants.

Whatever its motives for publishing the news of Bishop Quinn’s conviction over failing to register Douglas’s marriage in time, the Telegraph felt compelled to justify its actions in some detail, maintaining that while it had “no taste for prying into the affairs of public men,” it had no choice, for this case “is likely to have public consequences.”[45]  These “public consequences” had the greatest impact on Douglas, his standing within the government he led, and the public he served.  For once, friend and foe agreed that the scandal would adversely affect not only Douglas’s own career but also that of his government.

The Telegraph noted that he “had seriously impaired his position in the country,” having “alienated many of his friends, and given his enemies the opportunity they needed” to make political capital out of his “matrimonial eccentricities.”[46]  It concluded that it was up to Douglas himself to consider “how far his position is affected.”[47]  Even the normally sympathetic Wide Bay News contended that Douglas had committed a faux pas,[48] while the Australasian ruefully conceded that Douglas had made “a monumental mistake which has alienated shallow friends and distressed true friends beyond measure.”[49]

Nevertheless, despite these dire predictions, it was only a temporary setback for Douglas and his government.  It was true that in an era when one’s personal morality and social standing in the community were of paramount importance, Douglas’s had tarnished his reputation, for until this episode was made public, he had been considered a man of “unblemished private character and high social standing.”[50]  Fortunately, for him, the parliamentary recess until 23 April 1878 provided sufficient time to ameliorate “the shock now given to the public mind.”[51]  Douglas, for his part, firmly believed he had done no wrong, and resolutely continued as premier. 

No minister dared depose him, because, with the exception of Griffith, they were too inexperienced and lacked sufficient support from their colleagues.  Griffith, ambitious though he was, was forced to bide his time, as the toppling of Douglas would have led to not only the fall of the ministry but also a probable change of government,[52] for the government was coming under pressure from many quarters during the long recess.

It lost a valuable vote when the seat of Brisbane changed hands during the parliamentary break. [53]  Some government supporters in the parliament disapproved of the workings of Douglas’s 1876 Land Act; others were dissatisfied with the way railway policy was being implemented; while one was annoyed by the manner in which Pacific Islander trade was regulated.  However, they were not sufficiently disaffected to join the opposition, and continued to support it on the major issues before the parliament.[54]

The government was still considered too strong for the opposition, which was unable to capitalise on the controversy surrounding Douglas’s marriage and the disaffection among some of his parliamentary supporters.  This was due mainly to its own state of chronic disorganisation, with its leader, Palmer, frequently hinting at resigning, which he finally confirmed when parliament resumed.[55]  Palmer’s resignation was considered a blow to opposition prospects,[56] despite his being replaced by Thomas McIlwraith, who was universally considered to be a born leader with a commanding personality, a man of grand ideas and unbridled ambition and who would prove himself to be determined, autocratic, energetic and shrewd.[57]

Thus by the time parliament reconvened, the scandal had petered out and the government suffered no lasting damage.  Douglas had weathered the close public examination of his private life, albeit at some cost, because his new wife was considered unpresentable.  For example, at the governor’s levee in 1878, attended by 600 selected men and women to celebrate Queen Victoria’s 59th birthday, Douglas and his wife were conspicuous by their absence. [58]  

[1] An example of unacceptable conduct not being reported would be one of Douglas’s political adversaries, Ratcliffe Pring, who was notorious for womanising.  He was once forced to resign as attorney general after an editor for The Telegraph, “saw Mr. Pring on the top of a woman on board of a steamer up north, and told the then ministry of it and caused Mr. Pring to resign.”  This matter was never reported in the press.  (William Pettigrew to Thomas McIlwraith, 1 July 1879.  McIlwraith / Palmer Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 64-19/2)
[2]Cecilia Douglas, p. 30
[3] Ibid.  Sarah once destroyed a letter from John’s sister, “all for some trivial expression which did not please her.”  (John Douglas to Edward Douglas, 9 October 1897.  Douglas Papers, John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland, OM 89-3/B/2/(a)/16)
[4] Ada Cambridge.  Thirty Years in Australia.  Sydney, New South Wales University Press, 1989, p. 250
[5] As Rachel Henning observed after emigrating to Queensland from England; “It is curious that in these republican countries where ‘Jack is as good as his master,’ and much better in his own estimation, there is a much wider gap between class and class than there is in England.”  (Quoted in Michael Cannon.  Life in the Country.  Australia in the Victorian Age, vol 2.  Melbourne, Nelson, 1973, p. 153)
[6] Blainey (1986), p. 115
[7] Thorvald Peter Ludwig Weitemeyer.  Missing Friends:  Being the Adventures of a Danish Emigrant in Queensland (1871-1880.)  London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1908, pp. 272-73
[8] Ibid., p. 272
[9] Cannon, p. 242
[10] Ibid., p. 190
[11] James Quinn (1819-81) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Queensland and Brisbane from 1859 until his death.  He married the couple at his residence, ‘Dara,’ in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane.
[12] All Saints Church, Wickham Terrace, Brisbane, where Douglas worshipped for many years, was described as “a leading centre of the Catholic revival within the Anglican church.”  (www2.eis.net.au/~domusmea/01_about/about.htm)
[13] As Douglas once remarked, “he did not pretend to be a strong secularist, but he was strongly unsectarian.”  (Mr. Douglas.  “Orphanages Bill.”  Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 29, 1879, p. 776)
[14] See Sarah Douglas to Edward Douglas, 8 September 1894.  McCourt Papers.  Some excerpts from this letter illustrate her attitude in this regard: “I always say the Irish are the finest people in the world,” and, “There is not a man in a public position in Queensland but has come from the people, made his own position, and they are generally the best men … I don’t want you to fall back on the Douglas prestige unless you fall back on the good Lord James who fought with Bruce.”
[15] Personal conversation with Sybil Douglas, Brisbane, November 2000.
[16] A committed mason, Douglas became, on 6 January 1879, the Queensland Provincial Grand Master of the Scottish Constitution.  (Pugh’s Almanac, 1879, p.159.)  It is not surprising that he clung to his freemasonry, for being a mason was considered de rigour for many successful politicians in colonial Australia.
[17] Beverley Kingston.  The Oxford History of Australia, vol 3, 1860-1900: Glad, Confident Morning.  Melbourne, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 287.  For an example of how Sarah’s unsuitability compromised Douglas’s career, see the Telegraph, 29 March 1879.
[18] Cecilia Douglas, p. 31.  Edward was baptised on 16 January 1878.
[19] Deposition and Minute Book, Police Court, Brisbane, CPS1/AW27, 20 December 1877, p. 474.  Queensland State Archives, PRV 6316
[20] For an interesting discussion on this matter from a contemporary perspective, see the editorial in the Rockhampton Bulletin, 26 December 1877, p. 2
[21] The Telegraph, 20 December 1877, p. 2.  It then appeared in the Week, the weekly edition of the Telegraph, on 22 December 1877, p. 776.
[22]The full notice is reproduced in Appendix 4.
[23] Warwick Argus, 30 November 1876, p. 2
[24] See Bundaberg and Mount Perry Mail, 28 December 1877, p. 2; “Latest Telegrams.”  Cooktown Courier, 22 December 1877; Townsville Herald, 22 December 1877, p. 2
[25] Rockhampton Bulletin, 21 December 1877, p. 2.
[26] Papers in Sydney and Melbourne also took this course of action.  (Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December 1877, p. 5; The Age, 21 December 1877, p. 3; The Argus, 21 December 1877, p. 5)
[27] Rockhampton Bulletin, 26 December 1877, pp. 2 & 3.  The Argus in Melbourne also provided more detail in a subsequent article, mentioning Douglas by name, and stating that the “prosecution had been instituted by the registrar-general.”  (The Argus, 22 December 1877, p. 5.)  The Cooktown Courier went so far as to provide Sarah’s maiden name.  (“Latest Telegrams.”  Cooktown Courier, 22 December 1877)
[28] “The Month.”  Morning Bulletin, 3 January 1878, p. 2.  (The paper changed its name from the Rockhampton Bulletin to the Morning Bulletin on 2 January 1878 [William Ross Johnston and Margaret Zerner.  A Guide to the History of Queensland.  Brisbane, Library Board of Queensland p. 14].)  These comments were roundly condemned by the Wide Bay News, which classed the Bulletin as among the “carrion crows of the opposition who gloat over the thought that the premier has committed a faux pas.”  (Rockhampton Bulletin, 8 January 1878, p. 2)
[29] Rockhampton Bulletin, 26 December 1877, p. 2.  Of the major published newspapers in Brisbane at the time, three government-aligned papers refused to publish the details, while two opposition papers went ahead and printed the story.
[30] “Metropolitan Jottings.”  Queensland Times, 31 January 1878
[31] “Brisbane.”  Cooktown Courier, 9 January 1878, p. 3
[32] This condemnation of Bishop Quinn was in keeping with the paper’s aims “to lift parochial prejudices to the high plane of the international conflict between Catholicism and protestant Liberalism.”  (Queensland Evangelical Standard, 10 June 1875, quoted in Gilley, p. 108)
[33] Queensland Evangelical Standard, 29 December 1877, p. 304
[34] The registrar-general was Henry Jordan, a dentist, Wesleyan and the father of 11 children.  He was Queensland’s first emigration agent in London, and a member of parliament (1860, 1868-71, 1873 & 1874), before his appointment to the registrar-general post in 1875.
[35] The Australasian, 19 January 1878, p. 86.  The prosecutor for the registrar-general’s office was Ratcliffe Pring, a long time political adversary of Douglas.  (“Bishop O’Quinn fined.”  Queensland Evangelical Standard, 22 December 1877, p. 295)
[36] As Spencer Browne described Jordan’s faith, “without being particularly narrow he was of the Puritan type.”  (Browne (1927), p. 165)
[37] Alan Arthur Morrison.  “Henry Jordan.”  Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol 4.  Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 1972, p. 491
[38] Patrick O’Farrell.  The Irish in Australia.  Sydney, New South Wales University Press, 1986, p. 107
[39] Fitzgerald, p. 127.  For information on Irish settlers in Queensland and the abject poverty they fled from, see, P. F. Connole.  The Christian Brothers in Secondary Education, 1875-1965.  MA thesis.  University of Queensland, 1965, pp. 40-41
[40] Fitzgerald, p. 127; O’Farrell (1986), p. 107.  The press opposition was from the Brisbane Courier and its rival, the Guardian
[41] Keith Rayner.  The Attitude and Influence of the Churches in Queensland on Matters of Social and Political Importance.  BA Hons thesis. University of Queensland, 1951, p. 81
[42] T. P. Boland and O. K. Oxenham.  “The Queensland Immigration Society:  A Notable Experiment in Irish Settlement.”  Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland, vol 7 no 2, 1963-64, p. 319
[43] The Australasian, 19 January 1878, p. 86
[44] Patrick O’Farrell.  The Catholic Church and Community in Australia:  A History.  Melbourne, Thomas Nelson, 1977, pp. 130-32 
[45] The Telegraph, 22 January 1878, p. 2.  For an attack on The Telegraph’s stance, see The Queensland Times, 31 January 1878
[46] The Telegraph, 22 January 1878, p. 2
[47] Ibid.  The Queensland Patriot took this comment as a call for Douglas to resign, and suggested that the Telegraph editor was using this as a cynical opportunity “to give his new friends on the squatting side of the house a lift towards power.”  (Queensland Patriot, 24 January 1878, p. 2)
[48] Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, 8 January 1878, p. 2
[49] Australasian 19 January 1878, p. 86
[50] Ibid.
[51] The Telegraph, 22 January 1878, p. 2
[52] Brisbane Courier, 15 January 1878, p. 3.  It was also rumoured that Griffith would leave parliament to take a seat on the judiciary.
[53] Brisbane Courier, 20 March 1878, p. 2.  Ratcliffe Pring replaced Robert Stewart in a by-election on 12 February 1878
[54] Brisbane Courier, 20 March 1878, p. 2
[55] Brisbane Courier, 25 April 1878, p. 2.  Parliament resumed on 24 April 1878
[56] “Summary for Europe.”  Brisbane Courier, 20 April 1878, p. 6
[57] Wilson (1938), p. 74; Brisbane Courier 25 April 1878, p. 2; Brisbane Courier, 25 April 1878, p. 2; Waterson (1978), p. 126; John Vockler.  Sir Samuel Walker Griffith.  BA Hons thesis.  University of Queensland, 1953, p. 102; Alfred Deakin.  The Federal Story: The Inner History of the Federal Cause, 1880-1900.  J. A. La Nauze, ed.  Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 1963, p. 11
[58] “The Queen’s Birthday.”  Brisbane Courier, 25 May 1878, p. 5