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
