Politics in Queensland were in their infancy, with the
new colony not yet four years old.
Nevertheless, a measure of stability was provided through Governor Bowen
and Premier Herbert continuing to hold office.
Responsible government was still a relatively new concept, taken very
seriously by all concerned. However, as
the historian Manning Clark observed, responsible government modelled on the
British experience and exported to the Australian colonies assumed two main
political parties, each with clearly defined principles and interests.[3] This did not hold in Queensland, where there
were differences of interest, but no serious differences of principles or
doctrine.[4] Consequently, parliamentarians tended to
associate with men of like interest or coalesce around those with powerful
ambitions and personalities for in the absence of political parties,
politicians “stood out above the melee of politics.”[5]
These associations in no way resembled the disciplined political
parties of today. They were fluid class
based ideological groupings, bringing parliamentarians together to get a job
done or to implement a program. In the
absence of parties and party discipline, the loose interest groups that did
form did so only because they shared some common objective, usually of limited
duration.[6] This invariably led to shifting alliances and
frequent disagreements, and resulted in a more complex system than that found
today.[7] Often, men who were fiercely opposed to each
other would suddenly appear together in the ministry. “Measures not men was the catchcry.”[8] This meant ministries came and went more
rapidly than is the case today, and they did not change only after an election.[9] This, as will be shown, all too frequently
ensured that politics in Queensland under responsible government in the mid to
late nineteenth century was stormy and unstable, with its parliaments divided
into a number of regional and personal cliques who fought against themselves
for “place and pay” or for some “fancied local advantage.”[10]
The main issues of the day for colonial politicians were
land, railways, immigration, and ensuring that their constituents did not miss
any largesse available from the colonial treasury. These issues were linked, for it was believed
that economic progress would be expedited through large-scale policies of
immigration and railway-building directed towards intensive land settlement.[11] Moreover, economic progress and development
was sacrosanct, for not only was development for its own sake considered
important, but it was also generally believed that moral progress naturally
followed on from economic success.[12]
The
second parliament
It was against this background that Queensland’s second
parliament met on 21 July 1863, with Herbert continuing as premier after
successfully contesting the seat of West Moreton.[13] Douglas took his seat of Port Curtis, having
already committed himself to opposing the premier and his ministry, for he
considered them to be, “a piece of incongruous patch work.”[14]
This was not surprising, as the dominant feature of
Queensland politics during this period was the lack of any party organisation.[15] This absence of political
groupings meant that there was ample scope for members to display their independence
and vote in accordance with their beliefs, so long as they also primed the
parish-pump for the benefit of their electorate. Men like Douglas were expected to be
“independent” and “to hold ideas that were very much their own,” with their
strength of character and attitudes to life being of major importance.[16] However, although independent of party, they
needed to be closely aligned to their constituents’ interests if they wished to
be re-elected to office.[17]
There had been a significant turnover of members in the
three years between the first and second parliaments, with 12 current
legislative assembly members, almost 50 per cent of the total, returned since
the historical first sitting on 7 May 1860.[18] It is worthwhile to examine the
characteristics of the men, and they were all men, Douglas worked with, for it
offers insight into how Queensland politicians compared to Douglas.
In a religious age, they were all practising
Christians. The majority, 15 of the 26,
were Anglicans like Douglas. The remainder
comprised five Presbyterians, two Wesleyans, a Methodist, a Congregationalist,
a Baptist and William Kennedy, the sole Roman Catholic.
Not surprisingly, not one of them had been born in the
colony. What was surprising was that
none was born in the Australian colonies either. With the exception of Theophilus Pugh, born
in the West Indies where his father was a Wesleyan missionary, all were born in
the United Kingdom. The majority, 13,
were born in England, seven in Scotland, three in Ireland and one in
Wales. It is unknown where William
Kennedy, who arrived in Queensland in 1841, was born. The Scottish influence was particularly
strong, even more so when including Douglas who, although born in London,
considered himself Scottish.[19]
Many of the members came from humble backgrounds. William Groom’s father was a cordwainer, and
Charles Lilley’s father was a bootmaker.
Others were the sons of farmers, merchants, clergymen or professionals. Only three, Douglas, Gilbert Eliott and
Robert Mackenzie, were of aristocratic birth.
The parliament was an interesting combination of
‘gentlemen’ and self-made men, especially Groom, who came to Australia in 1849
as a convict sentenced to seven years transportation for stealing. Fourteen were squatters, five were in the
legal profession, four were newspaper proprietors, and one was a doctor, with
merchants making up the remainder. Its
composition demonstrated that the ’establishment’ was characterised by the
possession of property and wealth rather than by birth.[20]
It was a diverse and combustible mix. Although Douglas was bound to many through
common ties of country, religion and profession, in other ways his beliefs and
principles were at variance with the majority, as this chapter will
demonstrate. He was a squatter who
supported small farmers against pastoralists.
Although devoted to the Church of England, he pushed for state support
of denominational schools against the wishes of the Anglican majority. An aristocrat by birth, he was a liberal,
while the other two aristocrats were conservatives. Moreover, in his upbringing, manner,
commitment to duty, sense of fair play and respect for decorum, Douglas
demonstrated very different values and behaviour to many of the self-made men
inhabiting the parliamentary benches with him.
As he himself once remarked to his constituents:
Douglas was delighted to again be in the political arena,
representing his electorate at the very centre of power and influence. On his first day in parliament, he presented
a petition from his constituents requesting that there be no railway
construction in the south of the colony unless the northern districts received
a railway as well.[22] It was not surprising that Douglas’s
constituents felt this way, for there was keen competition between the various
districts over the siting of the colony’s first railway. Whatever faults I may have, gentlemen, and I am conscious of very many, they are not those of meanness, or of sordid avarice based on political treachery.[21]Railway policy
In presenting this petition, Douglas was conveying the
anger of his electorate whose voters believed that parliament had neglected
them when constructing a railway line from Ipswich to Dalby instead of in their
northern district. The residents of
Central Queensland wanted their own east-west railway from Rockhampton to Peak
Downs, claiming that they had greater need than settlers on the Darling Downs
did, who had grown wealthy without the necessity of a railway.[23] Douglas had recently chaired an “indignation
meeting” at Rockhampton on just this issue.
Although his views were not as stridently expressed as many others, he
sagely advised them to “go in for a railway too.”
Douglas’s initial address to the Queensland parliament
consisted of mercilessly criticising the Herbert ministry for alleged
misconduct, due to its attempted passing of a railway Bill at the end of the
previous session, an action Douglas considered unconstitutional.[24] Douglas opposed the ministry throughout the
life of the second parliament and continually fought for the establishment of
railway lines and road networks in the northern districts. In this endeavour, the local paper, the Rockhampton
and Central Queensland Advertiser, faithfully supported him throughout.[25]
Initially the railway petitions Douglas presented on
behalf of his Maryborough, Rockhampton and Gladstone constituents were treated
with contempt by Governor Bowen’s private secretary, Henry Pitt, who, in his
reply to Douglas, suggested that the petitioners should “devote to the
practical object of improving their own local institutions the energies now
wasted in fruitless endeavours of this nature.”[26] This response, as well as Douglas’s reply,
which hinted darkly that failure to act on the petition “may lead to the
disintegration of the colony,” were published in full in the local newspaper
and helped cement his support in the northern electorate by demonstrating his
willingness to stand up to what were perceived to be dominating southern
interests. [27]
The Rockhampton
Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser considered the private
secretary’s remarks “indecorous and heartless.”[28] However, the issue did not go away, and
Douglas and his Central Queensland constituents were successful the following
year when a route for the great northern line out of Rockhampton was approved
and surveyed.[29]
Douglas foresaw the construction of railway lines being
funded on similar lines to that in America, where “railways have been
constructed and are now being successfully conducted by companies largely endowed
with state lands.”[30]
Railway provision in the colony, and a sustainable means
of funding them through land sales, were themes to which he would repeatedly
return.[31] The issues neatly married his two overriding
concerns in his early parliamentary career: that of opening the north for
development through the use of an efficient means of transport, and of finding
a way to ensure it occurred in a manner that would fund and support the growth
of the colony, not bankrupt it. Douglas
believed that railways should be built out of the proceeds of land sales,
coining the term “land-grant lines” for this process.[32] To him they were:not so much a source of profit at the present time, but as a means of colonisation ... So far as paying for their construction was concerned, there were ample means by the sale of crown lands in districts contiguous to the lines.[33]The development of railways in the young colony was deemed essential, for railways were the most important symbol of a country’s industrial, economic and financial power. The more youthful or impoverished the country, the more urgently it seized on the railway as the key to progress.[34] Douglas, along with every other Queenslander, understood this.[35] They knew that a railway line in their district would inject enormous investment and bring lasting economic and transportation developments. The question was not whether Queensland should build railways, but rather where was the best route to reap the rewards sufficient to justify the cost and effort required to build them.
Railways were ideally suited to Queensland, given its
vast spaces and the poor state of the transport network in a colony without a
navigable inland river system and atrocious roads all too often washed away by
floods or turned to dust by droughts.[36] Unfortunately, it also ignited the fierce
regionalism prevalent in the colony, and frequently resulted in bitter rivalry
between the southern and northern parts of the colony.
Premier Herbert envisaged a railway system operated by
private enterprise based on the economical horse-drawn tramways he had seen in
England. The Moreton Bay Tramway Company
was established to build tramways in the colony but struggled to attract
sufficient financial support.[37]
In July 1863, Douglas presented a petition on behalf of
William Coote, the late manager and engineer of the Moreton Bay Tramway
Company, to inquire into negotiations between the company and the government
regarding a tramway from Ipswich to Dalby.[38] Incorporated by an act of parliament in 1861,
the company had subscribers for £53,000 worth of shares for its proposal to
build a standard gauge, horse-hauled, wooden-railed tramway from Ipswich to
Toowoomba.[39] The money raised was insufficient, and the
company became insolvent in late 1862,[40] with its only asset - its
survey plans – being sold to the government for £3,150.[41] The company’s failure demonstrated that
private funding of railways was not viable and that the government would have
to finance their construction in the colony.[42]
Nevertheless, in 1863 the government still wished to have
a tramway built. While it initially
rejected an offer from the eventual successful tender, Tooth & Company, to
build the line by funding it from a combination of land grants and government
debentures, it eagerly seized on their proposal to use a narrow-gauge (3’ 6”)
light railway line as advocated by its consultant, Irish engineer, Abraham
Fitzgibbon.[43] Coote had nothing but contempt for a railway
based on such a narrow gauge, and did not hide his strong feelings on the matter.[44]
Douglas asked that a select committee consider the
matters raised in the petition. The
motion was lost, but not before the premier, Herbert, remarked that Douglas
“had been made a cat’s paw of by the audacious petitioner.”[45] The timing and manner of the petition was
contentious, with Coote having been an unsuccessful candidate for the seat of
South Brisbane, while at least six and possibly up to nine members of the
opposition were shareholders of the defunct company.[46] Douglas’s championing of Coote’s cause was
considered by the Daily Guardian
newspaper to be overly ambitious. It
regarding him as being “young and green,”[47] while the Brisbane Courier considered Douglas to
be neither conversant of the rules of boards nor how parliament operated.[48]
Although hardly an auspicious start to what was to be a
long and distinguished political career in Queensland, the issue of the Tramway
Company gave Douglas considerable publicity and a degree of prominence.[49] While not a shareholder in the company, he
supported Coote because he, too, was firmly against the introduction of a
narrow-gauge railway into the colony.[50]
A week later, the Brisbane
Courier reconsidered its attitude to Douglas following his opposition to a
railway Bill introduced into parliament.
The paper believed that Douglas was:
worthy of the confidence reposed in him by the northern electors. His reply to the arguments adduced in the debate was as sensible and sound as it was dignified. He refrained from indulging in facetious remarks [and] what he did state was in accordance with the high opinions which had been formed of him.[51]Another issue that Douglas involved himself with was irregularities surrounding the Gladfield agricultural reserve on the Darling Downs. As the reserve fell outside the boundaries of Douglas’s electorate, his raising of this matter in parliament was contentious.
Land
issues
The Gladfield Reserve no. 13 was established in 1855,
when part of the Gladfield run. However,
in May 1863 the area of the reserve was reduced from nine sections to only two.[52] Douglas asked for all relevant correspondence
to be placed before parliament, and demanded to know how and why this had
happened, suggesting that “a great fraud had been perpetuated upon the land
fund of the colony.”[53] During debate on the matter, it transpired
that the reserve had been reduced at the urging of the member for Warwick,
Arnold Wienholt, a member of the government, who had not only owned the
adjoining lands but who had then proceeded to buy up the released portions of the
reserve for an undisclosed sum, under pre-emptive right.[54]
The colonial secretary strongly defended Wienholt,
arguing that Douglas was out of order for presenting a petition from outside of
his electorate. Heated debate ensued and
parliament disallowed the tabling of the petition.[55] Douglas considered the conduct of the
government and the surveyor-general to be reprehensible,[56] a position supported by
both the Brisbane Courier[57] and the Daily Guardian.[58]
It had not taken Douglas long to be considered an effective
political opponent, one capable of wounding the government by exposing shady
deals done for the benefit of its members.
Moreover, he had demonstrated that he would not confine himself to the
concerns of his electorate, but would assist voters throughout the colony. This approach by Douglas endeared him to
voters in electorates where politicians ignored their local members’ concerns,
as the member for Warwick discovered when Douglas involved himself in the Warwick
Reserve extension dispute.
The mayor of Warwick along with 152 other residents had
asked Douglas to present a petition to parliament for the extension of the
Warwick Agricultural Reserve, as “it seems our Warwick member has totally
neglected us in these matters.”[59] Douglas willingly took on this task out of a
“recognised desire to promote the smaller settler”[60] and tabled it in
parliament. However, the government
declined to print it, because he was not the member for that district[61] and a furious Weinholt
criticised Douglas as one whom “said he would do a great deal, but he did
nothing - he talked a great deal, but he was all show, he was a blatherskite.”[62] Nevertheless, at a subsequent public meeting
in the Warwick electorate, [63] Douglas was praised by
those present while Weinholt was roundly condemned.[64]
Douglas had scored a convincing victory for the
opposition. He had put the government on
notice that he had the ability to embarrass them not only over matters
concerning his own electorate, but also on issues that concerned the entire
colony. In so doing, he demonstrated the
first signs of his political ability, ability that would eventually lead him to
a ministerial position and finally the premiership.
By the close of the parliamentary sitting, Douglas had
become a valued opposition member, one who fought hard for his and other
electorates. This was only to be
expected, as Oscar De Satge, a squatter and member of parliament for Clermont
from 1869, noted.
No new member of the legislature was held worth his salt by his constituents who did not try to get a dam made or well sunk on some waterless road, to say nothing of a jail and courthouse for every opening township.[65]However, this could be damaging to the electorate and the colony. A contemporary observer remarked on:
The incessant conflict between local interests and the public welfare. A shower of manna descends from the London money market. Ministers propose; rapacious electors, through their representatives dispose. A scheme of public works is drawn up. It is very soon extended through irrefutable proof that the neglected districts are as much entitled to expenditure as the favoured districts.[66]This entrenched attitude of provincialism and self-interest exasperated Governor Bowen, who was led to complain once that “every member tries to get as much as he can of public money for his constituents: it is as if the fate of the entire English ministry was dependent upon the erection of a bridge in Wales, Scotland or Ireland.”[67]
Douglas, under the guise of equality for his electorate, ‘milked’ this for all it was worth.
Votes of money should not be extracted by threats, or by political promises, but that they should be founded on the principle of justice – on the principle that as all parts of the colony contributed towards the revenue, and were equally taxed, and that as they possessed a common property, their funds should be distributed in something like a spirit of fairness and equality.[68]In this, he was successful; having placed on the supplementary estimates £5,000 for the development of roads in his district.[69] On another occasion he was less successful failing to secure the establishment of a lands office in Rockhampton when the Pastoral Leases Bill was discussed, despite claiming that, “it was only by anticipating the wants of the northern districts that the increasing cry for separation would be put down.”[70]
Towards the end of the session, Douglas had another
opportunity to demonstrate to the parliament and his constituents just how
stubborn he could be when adhering to his principles. The second reading of the Loan Bill included an amount of £100,000
for emigration.[71] A select committee had recently released a
report into this matter, with one of its recommendations, according to Douglas,
recommending the amending of a clause relating to land-orders in the Alienation
of Crown Lands Act to “legalise the present illegal attitude of the
government in connection with immigration.”[72]
This did not happen, so in the debate on the Loan Bill
Douglas attempted to have the sum of £100,000 for immigration reduced to a
shilling! Here too he was unsuccessful
and retired in a pique of anger and frustration.[73] In a letter to the Brisbane Courier, Douglas claimed that parliament had endorsed:a transaction which had not the sanction of law, and thus, in my opinion, parliament sacrificed a privilege which it aught to have held superior to the interests of either ministerialists or oppositionists.[74]True to his word, Douglas took no further part in the session, but this was no real hardship, for it ended less than a week later.
In only 28 sitting days, he had made a strong impact on the parliament with his maverick and uncompromising style, unwavering independence, a shared commitment to his electorate and the colony as a whole, and a refusal to sacrifice his principles on the altar of expediency. Douglas was actively involved in every issue considered by parliament. He had ended the 1863 session in a controversial manner, as he would commence the next session, attempting to amend the vice-regal speech! Not for Douglas could the following unkind charge be levied, as it was by the Brisbane Courier against some of his contemporaries, on the close of the session.
For a time his seat will know him no more; the soft cushions on which his aristocratic form were so frequently ensconced will be turned over to the tender mercies of some charwoman as zealous in the service of the public, perhaps, as a few of the gentleman who left the parliament.[75]
[1] Geoff Gaylard. The
[2] Bernays, p. 28
[3] Clark (1955), pp. 321-22
[4] According to McNaughtan, this was because the colonies were
engrossed in the tactics of getting wealth, and because the ethics underlying
economic legislation came as common property from England Greenwood Australia London
[5] M. B. Cameron. W. H.
Groom: Agrarian Liberal. BA Hons thesis. University of Queensland
[6] Ibid.
[7] John Gray. Liquor and
Politics 1859-1904. BA Hons thesis. University of Queensland
[8] Robyn Schmidt. Joshua P.
Bell as a Reflection of the Pure Merinos in Queensland Queensland
[9] Hirst (2002), p. 66
[10] Gray, pp. 36-37; Clark (1955), p. 322; Schmidt, pp. 22-28. As Wilson
colourfully observed, parliamentary politics in Queensland Queensland Queensland
[11] Lewis, p. 31
[12] Ibid. Douglas
was a strong believer in progress, observing in Bundaberg in 1878, “Even in his
short life he could look back to the time when the country was not even stocked
with sheep and cattle. Now it teemed
with human beings all preserving and striving to obtain a just reward for the
labor.” (“The Governor at
Bundaberg.” Bundaberg and Mount Perry 29 March 1878 ,
p. 2)
[13] Bernays, p. 28
[14] John Douglas. “To the
Electors of the Port
Curtis District Brisbane 14 April 1863
[15] Morrison (1961), p. 557
[16] Ibid.
[17] This was because, in the days before political parties, politicians
were judged almost solely on what they could do for the electorate. (Hirst (2002), p. 70)
[18] There were actually 13 changes, the thirteenth being the move of
Premier Herbert from the Leichardt to West Moreton
electorate.
[19] “Mr. Douglas on the Dominion of Australia Brisbane 24 October
1874 , p. 5
[20] Marion Powell. The Rise,
Causes and Consequences of the Crisis of 1866 in Queensland Queensland
[21] Brisbane Brisbane 7 November 1873 , p. 2
[22] Brisbane 23
July 1863 ; “Legislative Assembly, 22 July 1863 .”
Queensland Votes and Proceedings,
2nd session, 1863, p. 4. A copy of the
petition can be found in Queensland Votes
and Proceedings, 2nd session, 1863, pp. 599-600
[23] John Kerr. Triumph of Narrow Gauge: A History of Queensland
[24] Brisbane 23
July 1863
[25] See, for instance, Rockhampton
Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 October 1863 ; Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863 and a Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland
Advertiser, 29 December
1863 article lampooning the Queensland
Times for ridiculing Douglas ’s stance on
this matter.
[26] Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863 ; Margaret Hardy. Constitutional and Political Developments in Queensland Queensland
[27] Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser, 3 November 1863
[28] Ibid.
[29] Daddow, p. 21; Kerr (1998), p. 23
[30] “Legislative Assembly, 5 August 1863 .” Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 2nd
session, 1863, p. 8. The American
government passed the Land Grant Act
of 1850 to encourage the growth of railways and help offset the financial
burden construction entailed. The price
of land was US$1.25 per acre, later raised to US$2.50 per acre. The Act made once unwanted land valuable, and
during the life of the Act, from 1850 to 1871, American railways received 131
million acres of land grants.
[31] See William Coote. “Our
Leading Public Men. No. 1. The Hon. John Douglas.” The
Week, 19 May 1877 ,
p. 616
[32] Allan Morrison (1961), p. 569.
For a detailed exposition of Douglas ’s
land-grant lines philosophy, see, John Douglas (1882), pp. 484-99. The idea that money received for the land
itself would fund the development of railways was a variation of a concept
called, in the language of imperial economics, the Doctrine of Sufficient Price.
This process, seen to be self-financing and self-perpetuating, was
successfully used by Edward Gibbon Wakefield to found the settlement of Canterbury at Christchurch ,
New Zealand
[33] “Hon. John Douglas at Warwick 5 January 1867 , p.
6. Later on that year Douglas
proposed that land be sold on the foreign market, to “revive a healthy flow of
those immigrants who come out with money in their pockets.” The benefits of this would include “the money
still required to complete our railway system could thus be obtained with
certainty, in connection with the still greater advantages which would result
from the introduction of a class of persons possessing both capital end
enterprise.” (Queenslander, 17 August 1867, p. 5)
[34] Nicholas Faith. The World
the Railways Made. London
[35] John Douglas (1882), p. 484
[36] Fitzgerald, p. 128
[37] Ibid., p. 263
[38] “Mr. Coote and the Moreton Bay Tramway Company.” Brisbane 31 July 1863
[39] Kerr (1998), p. 4
[40] Daddow, pp. 6-7
[41] Coote embarked on a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to
secure some compensation from a government that had since utilised his initial
work in the final tramway construction.
(Mason, p. 56)
[42] Kerr (1998), p. 4
[43] Ibid., pp. 4-5
[44] Daddow, p. 8
[45] “Mr. Coote and the Moreton Bay Tramway Company.” Brisbane 31 July 1863
[46] Brisbane 31
July 1863 , p. 2
[47] Daily Guardian, 31 July 1963 , cited in Mason, p. 56
[48] Brisbane 31
July 1863 , p. 2. The paper
now sarcastically described Douglas as a
“great gun from the north” and a “star of the north,” who was now a “fallen
star.”
[49] Mason, p. 56
[50] Queensland Brisbane 9 September 1863 . As Douglas
later remarked: “It would have been
desirable to have a 4 ft 8½ inch gauge, but it was better to have the narrow
gauge than none at all.” (“Mr. Douglas
at the School of Arts Downs Gazette and General
Advertiser, 22 September
1883 )
[51] Brisbane 6
August 1863 , p. 2
[52] “The Gladfield Reserve.” Brisbane 26 August 1863 .
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.; Brisbane Courier, 9
September 1863 ; “The Warwick Brisbane 5 September 1863 . Wienholt was born on 22 January 1826 in Wales , arriving in Sydney Warwick 10 June 1863
to 25 June 1867 . With his brother Edward, he constructed a
huge pastoral empire on the Downs before retiring to Switzerland 16 January 1895 .
[55] Brisbane 3
September 1863
[56] “The Gladfield Reserve.” Brisbane 17 September 1863 .
[57]Brisbane 5 September 1863 . The mayor of Warwick Eastern
Downs , requesting that “the
Gladfield Reserve may be restored to its original dimensions.” However, mindful that McLean
sided with the government, the mayor also requested; “should any cause prevent
you from presenting the petition, it is the desire of the petitioners that you
will entrust it for presentation to John Douglas.” (“Warwick Brisbane 5 September 1863 .) This was presumably done because Douglas had previously lived in the district, was known
to its inhabitants and was considered sympathetic to their interests.[58] Daily Guardian, 31 August 1863 , quoted in
Mason, p. 57
[59] “Warwick Brisbane 5 September 1863
[60] Mason, p. 61
[61] “Warwick 5 September 1863 ; as the colonial
secretary delicately put it, Douglas “had
infringed upon a principle laid down by the House that any wants of a
particular district should be advocated by the member for that district.” Douglas was aware of the sensitivities
surrounding presenting a petition for another electorate, as he had previously
informed the Warwick Douglas was pleased that he had been asked to present
it. He later admitted “that he had been
in communication with some influential inhabitants of Warwick
[62] “Additional Members Bill.” Brisbane 10 September 1863
[63] Ibid.
[64] Brisbane 21
October 1863 , p. 2
[65] De Satge, p. 225.
[66] Queenslander. “Six Years of Queensland
[67] Schmidt, p. 27
[68] Mr. Douglas. “Address in
Reply to Opening Speech.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol
20, 1876, p. 85
[69] “The Northern Roads.” Brisbane 13 August 1863 ; “The Northern Road.” Brisbane 14 August 1863 .
This sum was added to the Government Lien Bill in September
1863. (“The Government Lien Bill.” Brisbane 18 September 1863 )
[70] “Pastoral Lease Bill.” Brisbane 22 August 1863
[71] “Loan Bill.” Brisbane 17 September 1863
[72] John Douglas. “The Loan
Bill.“ Brisbane 19 September 1863
[73] “Loan Bill.” Brisbane 17 September 1863
[74] John Douglas. “The Loan
Bill.“ Brisbane 19 September 1863
[75] Brisbane 23
September 1863 , p. 2
