This newspaper extract contains three distinct pieces concerning John Douglas, all published in the Queensland Daily Guardian, Wednesday 22 May 1867, p. 2:
- Parliamentary
proceedings, 21 May 1867 — the debate over Douglas's resignation as
Colonial Treasurer, his appointment as Secretary for Works, and whether he
was legally required to seek re-election.
- Editorial
on the ministerial crisis — beginning “The debate of yesterday afternoon
in the House of Assembly...” This examines Douglas's disagreement with his
colleagues and the constitutional implications of the cabinet reshuffle.
- “A
Few Revelations” — a separate editorial beginning “A few revelations with
regard to the mysterious art of Cabinet-making in Queensland...” It
criticises the Government's handling of Douglas's resignation and
subsequent appointment.
1. Parliamentary proceedings
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1867.
In the Legislative Assembly yesterday.
A petition was presented from a large number of the
inhabitants of Rockhampton and the neighbouring districts, on the general state
of the colony, praying that no further expenditure should take place on
railways; and requesting that the Dalby line should be stopped; if it was
continued they hoped that the Northern line would be extended beyond the
Dawson.
Mr. ROBERT CRIBB and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GROOM took their
seats respectively as members for East Moreton, and for Drayton and Toowoomba.
A question by Mr. PALMER, with regard to the sureties
furnished by the Treasury Clerk, having been answered by Mr. DOUGLAS, as he
said, on behalf of the Colonial Treasurer.
Mr. PING raised a question of privilege, and asked how the
hon. member came to answer on behalf of the Treasurer, if he no longer held
that office?
Mr. MACALISTER, after a discussion upon a minor point,
explained that Mr. Douglas had resigned the Treasurership because the proposal
of the Government to resume the land order system disagreed with the scheme of
finance he had intended to submit to the House. His resignation was not accepted,
but he was transferred to the office of Secretary for Works, and Mr. Stephens
had been appointed Colonial Treasurer.
Mr. PING contended that the acceptance by Mr. Douglas of a
new office rendered it necessary that he should go before his constituents.
According to the practice of the Imperial Parliament, the only instance in
which re-election was unnecessary, was when one of the principal Secretaries of
State was transferred from one department to another, there being no such
divisions in the offices of Secretary of State as to render them distinct
offices. In the present case, this was a removal from one department to another
of a distinct kind. He referred to the case which happened lately of Sir John
Pakington, who went from the office of Lord of the Admiralty to that of
Secretary for War, and had to be re-elected by his constituents.
Mr. PUGH followed this up by a motion declaring Mr. Douglas'
seat vacant by reason of his accepting the office of Secretary for Works.
Mr. MACALISTER contended that all colonial Ministers stood
in the same position as principal Secretaries of State; the office of Secretary
for War, which had been alluded to, was a subordinate office. It had been the
practice in New South Wales for members of the Government to go from one office
to another without re-election. He admitted that if any interval had elapsed,
which was not the case, between Mr. Douglas' retirement from one office and his
acceptance of another, he would have needed to go before his constituents.
Mr. MACKENZIE wished to know if Mr. Douglas had resigned the
Treasurership, and had afterwards taken another office? Because if he had done
so, there was no need for discussing the question. He remarked that if it had
not been for this occurrence, the Ministry would not have thought of filling up
the office of Secretary for Works; and, indeed, the House was opposed to five
Ministers sitting in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. MACALISTER stated that no resignation had been accepted.
Mr. RAFF concurred with Mr. PING, and contended that there
was no such distinction as the Premier had attempted to set up.
Mr. BELL maintained that as there could be no resignation
until it was accepted, the transfer from one office to another, followed as a
matter of course.
Mr. WALSH, after referring to some rumours afloat with
regard to the change, and expressing his concurrence with the motion, said he
hoped the House would at once refuse to pass any important measure until there
was a dissolution.
Mr. BROOKES expressed his partial approval of what had been
urged previously by Mr. Ping; his belief in the present Ministry as the only
one which could be found capable of governing the colony properly, and his
thorough mistrust of Mr. Walsh by whom he advised the House not to be misled.
Mr. DOUGLAS corroborated the statement of the Premier, that
his resignation as Colonial Treasurer had not been accepted; justified by
reference to New South Wales his continuance in the House as a member without
re-election on his acceptance of a new office; but expressed his readiness to
submit himself to his constituents for re-election.
Mr. R. CRIBB expressed his regret that Mr. Douglas had not
appealed to his constituents without more ado, as by his present conduct he was
violating the Constitution.
Mr. LILLEY argued that there was no necessity for Mr.
Douglas to appeal to his constituents for re-election, maintaining that Mr.
Douglas had only transferred his office, and being a member of the Cabinet
Council, both before and after such transference, that he had no more need to
appeal to his constituents than a Secretary in the State Department in England.
Dr. CHALLINOR maintained that there was no analogy between a
Secretary of that department and the Colonial Treasurer, but between him and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The latter would have to resign his seat on
taking a different office, and so therefore, should the former. Independently
of that, there was sufficient to justify a vote of want of confidence in the
present Ministry, when one of their number could show his readiness to
relinquish his policy on a vital point on a mere change of his office.
Moreover, he was opposed to Ministers who sought to change the Cabinet without
being responsible to the Parliament for it.
Mr. PING pointed out the difference between the interchange
of offices by a Secretary in the State Department at home which was but one,
and the change of Mr. Douglas from the Treasurership to the distinct department
of Works.
Mr. PUGH, having expressed his surprise that his motion had
been resisted by the Ministry, and answered several objections raised to it,
announced his determination to press it to a division.
The motion was then put, and carried by a majority of 19 to
5.
Mr. MACALISTER informed the House that as he had been quite
unprepared for the division that had taken place on the motion, he desired time
to deliberate upon the advice it would be proper for him to offer his
Excellency the Governor, under the circumstances. He moved that the House adjourn
until to-morrow (this day).
The House adjourned at a quarter to 6 o'clock.
2. Editorial — The ministerial crisis
The debate of yesterday afternoon in the House of Assembly,
took by surprise the majority of those who had the privilege of listening to
it; and the surprise was not more due to the suddenness of the political
circumstances which led to the debate than to the fact that upon the
proposition placed before the House, the Ministry should have courted combat
and sustained inevitable defeat. The public yesterday morning were astonished
to hear rumours to the effect that Mr. DOUGLAS had thought fit to resign his
office as Colonial Treasurer, and that Mr. STEPHENS, the member for South
Brisbane had been offered and had accepted the office vacated by such
resignation. The accuracy of these rumours in the course of the afternoon was
confirmed; but it appeared that whilst they conveyed the truth, they did not
convey the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. DOUGLAS, although he had
resigned his post as Colonial Treasurer, and although his resignation had been
accepted and a substitute for the vacant post gazetted in the person of Mr. T.
B. STEPHENS, had not seceded from the Ministry. He took his seat in his usual
place on the Ministerial Benches, and it was only when a question on the notice
paper, alleged to be addressed to the Colonial Treasurer, was put by Mr. PALMER
that an approximation was arrived at concerning the facts connected with
changes in the Cabinet. Mr. DOUGLAS rose and answered “on behalf” of the
Colonial Treasurer; and Mr. PING then raised the cry of Privilege, which led to
an explanation of political changes in the Cabinet which had apparently taken
place within the previous twenty-four hours. For the full particulars of the explanation
which was elicited, literally piecemeal, with great difficulty from the lips of
an unwilling Ministry, it is but necessary to refer the reader to the columns
of this journal containing the reports of the debate.
The main facts are these. The Colonial Secretary and Mr.
DOUGLAS agree in their statements to the effect that the latter gentleman did
not agree with the majority of the Ministry in the details of a Bill—the
Immigration Bill—involving matters calculated to directly or indirectly affect
the revenue over which the Colonial Treasurer is supposed to exercise a
peculiar control. Accordingly Mr. DOUGLAS felt that it was his duty to tender
his resignation as Colonial Treasurer, as the matters to which he objected
involved questions of vital policy in connection with the interests of the
colony; and, therefore, he felt that he could not any longer act in accord with
his colleagues, if the objectionable points of policy were persisted in. He
tendered his resignation and his successor was appointed. The Colonial
Secretary, however, naturally unwilling at the present time to alienate from
him a colleague—who has commanded hitherto great respect from all sections of
the House, on account of his undoubted sincerity as well as his ability,—resolved
upon a bold step, and made an overture to Mr. DOUGLAS, which, in a rash moment
he accepted; an overture which involved a line of action on the part of the
Ministry of the day which the House of Assembly by an overwhelming majority,
indignantly condemned. The Ministry appointed Mr. DOUGLAS Secretary for Works
in spite of the fact that a few days before the amalgamation of the office of
Secretary for Lands and Secretary for Works had been announced. Mr. DOUGLAS
accepted the appointment, and was gazetted, and the hon. gentleman who appeared
on the last day of the meeting of the House—viz., on Thursday last, as Colonial
Treasurer, took the same seat yesterday on the Ministerial Benches which he
then occupied, only he appeared on it in the capacity of Secretary for Works,
having resigned one position of profit under the Crown and taken another
position of profit under the Crown. On these grounds, it was objected that as
there had been a virtual resignation of one office, and virtual acceptance of
another office—the acceptance alluded to, rendered the seat of Mr. DOUGLAS
vacant, and it was necessary that he should again appear before his
constituents before he could sit or vote. The arguments in favour of the motion
that Mr. DOUGLAS should resign his seat were so plain that it is needless to
say the proposition to that effect was carried against the Ministry by an
overwhelming majority, and the House thus resented one of the most impudent
attempts to insult its privileges which has occurred in the annals of this
colony.
We shall not here enter into the question as to the
applicability of the precedents advanced by the members of the Ministry in
support of that line of action which they thought fit to pursue in connection
with the resignation of one office in the Cabinet by Mr. DOUGLAS, his
appointment to another and a distinct office, and the appointment of Mr.
STEPHENS to the office previously occupied by Mr. DOUGLAS. Those precedents
were analysed, and the absence of analogy to the case in point, fully proved,
we think, in the course of debate, but of this the public will judge. The
exigencies of space will not now allow us to enter into an investigation of the
fallacies uttered with regard to this aspect of the case on the ministerial
side. Suffice it to say that if these arguments were valid they would afford to
Ministers carte blanche to exchange offices in the Cabinet with each other to
any extent, during such member's tenure of office, and as long as exchange was
made of sufficient officers of the Cabinet of their posts in the same Cabinet,
any such resignation of office by one Minister and acceptance on his part of
another office, would not involve the necessity of such Minister's
re-appearance before his constituents in each successive resignation of one
appointment, and acceptance of another. This proposition was seriously laid
down, and it was attempted to be justified by reference to practice in the
mother country; but divesting the question of all quibbles we ask would any
Cabinet seriously maintain that the Premier of Great Britain could resign his
seat to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the latter officer resign his post and
become the Foreign Secretary, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs become
Premier, without the interchange of offices involving an appeal on the part of
each gentleman to his constituents. Yet this is the ground assumed by the
present Ministry, in justification of the course which has been pursued in
relation to the resignation of Mr. DOUGLAS of the office of Colonial Secretary,
his appointment to another office in the Cabinet, not at present recognised by
the House, and the appointment of Mr. STEPHENS to the post originally vacated
by Mr. DOUGLAS. They assume that resignation of one office as Cabinet Minister,
by a member, an office of profit under the Crown, and his immediate acceptance
of another totally distinct office, does not involve the necessity of that
Minister's re-election in his new official capacity. But in the present
instance the Ministry did more than this: having by their own act and deed
virtually abolished an office, viz.:—that of Secretary for Works, and
amalgamated it with that of Secretary for Lands, they re-create the former
office and appoint an officer to it, for the purpose of gaining an additional
vote in the House. It was certainly understood from the words that fell from
the Colonial Secretary on a recent occasion, that when Mr. BELL was gazetted as
Secretary for Works in addition to being Secretary for Lands, that the
appointment was permanent and that henceforth the offices of Lands and Works
would be united as they had been on the first creation of this department as a
separate department. The House was led to believe this, else would a
substantive motion have been tabled to the effect that four Responsible
Ministers, holding seats and having votes, in a House of thirty-two members was
a sufficient preponderance of political power in the House of Representatives
to directly confer upon the Executive of the day. The reason for such a resolution
not being tabled was, that the Ministry had tacitly, by their action, after the
resignation of Mr. WATTS, the late member for Public Works, admitted the
justice of the resolution and their desire to accede to it by rolling into one,
two offices in the Cabinet which had previously been of a separate and distinct
character. The implied pledge in this matter on the part of the Ministers has
been violated by the recent action taken. And, with regard to this matter, we
would suggest that the recent re-severance of duties of Secretary for Works
from those which before appertained to the Secretary for Lands and Works should
render it necessary that Mr. BELL, the late Secretary for Lands and Works,
should go before his constituents; or rather, indeed, we would ask, whether he
ought not to have gone before his constituents when he accepted the duties of
Secretary for Works in addition to those of Secretary for Lands. A Minister
should not be able to add to and subtract from his responsibilities in the department
or departments more immediately under his control in this wholesale manner at
the caprice of the Head of the Cabinet. It tends to subvert the idea of
responsibility attaching to him; and his fellow representatives in certain
cases of grievance, would scarcely know how to get at him to answer for his
responsibility. He is at one time two single gentlemen rolled into one, and at
another time one single gentleman subdivided into two—according as the
political exigencies of the occasion require. These facts of political
acrobatism may be convenient to those in power, and also are undoubtedly
ingenious; but they tend to secure neither the applause of the outside public,
nor the confidence of the colonists in the good intentions of the performer.
The course pursued by Mr. DOUGLAS in the matters referred to
has given general cause of regret to those who looked upon him as one who, in
the Cabinet, was a sort of guarantee for Ministerial integrity of purpose and
action. We believe that in a weak moment he was hurriedly persuaded to adopt a
line of action which he can scarcely look back to with any feelings of
self-approbation. The great defect in his conduct is easily pointed out. If he
felt justified in throwing up his office as Colonial Treasurer because on an
important question of policy, he was opposed to his colleagues, upon what
ground does he justify his immediate subsequent acceptance of another office
than that which he had relinquished under the same colleagues. If that policy
to which he objected had been modified previously to his acceptance of the
office of Secretary for Works, it was due to himself that he should have
returned to that same office in the Cabinet which he had previously abandoned
owing to differences of opinion with his colleagues. If on the other hand no
such modification has taken place, how can he separate his individual action as
a member of the Cabinet on a question of vital policy from that of his
colleagues. If this separate isolated action on the part of members of a
Cabinet in great questions were allowed, we might attain to an unchangeable
executive, composed of a body of men who would record the dictates of the
House, but in whom it would be almost impossible to express a want of
confidence, as they might so divide their ranks that on any important occasions
their votes would be so distributed that it would be impossible to arrive at
Ministerial collective responsibilities. This would lead to a state of affairs
which however desirable to some minds would not be Representative Government,
conducted according to the theory of constitution. Unity of action and
responsibility must be one of the main features of our Executive, under that
form of Government under which we at present possess the privilege of living.
3. Editorial — “A Few Revelations”
A FEW revelations with regard to the mysterious art of
Cabinet-making in Queensland were made in the course of yesterday's debate,
which led the House of Assembly to declare that the seat of Mr. JOHN DOUGLAS
was vacant, owing to his acceptance of an appointment of profit under the
Crown. Owing to Ministerial mystifications, it is really difficult to get at
the bottom of the true facts of the case in connection with the recent
resignation of Mr. DOUGLAS as Colonial Treasurer, and his immediate appointment
to another office in the Cabinet, apparently resuscitated for his own especial
and peculiar behoof. We know that Mr. DOUGLAS has resigned his post as Colonial
Treasurer, and has been subsequently alluded to in a Government Gazette, as
having been appointed Secretary for Works. We know that Mr. STEPHENS the member
for South Brisbane and proprietor of an influential daily journal whose recent
political proclivities are now easily explained, has been gazetted as Colonial
Treasurer in the stead of Mr. DOUGLAS. We also know that to make room for Mr.
DOUGLAS an office hitherto thought dead for a time has been resuscitated, and
blooms in all the freshness of renewed political life. But we, in common with
many hon. members, are still in the dark as to the main principles upon which
this art of cabinet-making is conducted. Our official contemporary is no doubt
in a position to officially enlighten us. We do not allude to that eloquent and
instructive journal the Government Gazette. We allude to the influential organ
of public opinion conducted by the Colonial Treasurer. The public pine for
light on this matter, and to that journal we look for the promulgation of a
sufficiency of rays calculated to afford relief to the public eye.
In the first place it was apparent yesterday when Mr.
DOUGLAS first took his accustomed seat on the Ministerial Benches, that he did
not know exactly who he was—that is to say, officially. His own knowledge of
his official identity appeared to have deserted him. The Premier told the House
that Mr. DOUGLAS had simply tendered his resignation, but inferred that it did
not follow that that resignation had been accepted. In the course of debate a
newly issued Government Gazette was placed upon the table by which it appeared
that if Mr. DOUGLAS had not resigned, yet Mr. STEPHENS had been appointed
Treasurer in the room of Mr. DOUGLAS appointed Secretary for Public Works, an
office not then known or recognisable by the House. Then Mr. DOUGLAS found
himself, if the Premier's statement was to be relied upon, in a painfully dual
position. His resignation had not been accepted, yet another member had been
appointed to fill his office as Colonial Treasurer whilst he was in the
anomalous position of an unrecognisable officer who acted “on behalf” of the
Colonial Treasurer, the member of a Ministry from which he so far disagreed
that he felt bound to make a temporary secession from them. When Cabinet making
is conducted in this rapid manner, the master workmen should not insult those
to whom the productions of their hands are to be exhibited by turning them out
in this incomplete manner. It was intimated by Dr. CHALLINOR that the true
cause of the resignation of Mr. DOUGLAS was that a Bill was placed upon the
table of the House by the Premier, who had not the courtesy to previously
forward it to his colleagues for consideration. This also is common rumour
through the town, and the sooner it is contradicted the better. We cannot
accept its truth, because it is hardly likely that any head of a Government
would act towards his colleagues in so discourteous a manner; nor is it likely
that any members of an Executive would submit to such imperious treatment.
Neither do we think it likely that Mr. DOUGLAS would again, within the space of
twenty-four hours after he had tendered his resignation accept office under
colleagues who had been guilty of such conduct as that above indicated. As the
rumour is prevalent, it is desirable that publicity should be given to it, so
that opportunity may be afforded for giving to it a public denial. Ministers,
in one sense, are often placed in an unpleasant situation—that is to say, vague
rumours float about, and the Ministers cannot seize upon anything tangible to
which to give a flat contradiction. The present Colonial Treasurer, however,
will no doubt be of valuable assistance to Ministers in this respect, and will
no doubt furnish Ministers with a medium on which to make replies to vague
accusations, which replies it would be scarcely dignified for Ministers to
utter in the House. The value of replies conveyed indirectly through a
journalistic channel without the weight of official utterance attaching to them
will be duly appreciated by the public and the House.
The motion which yesterday was carried to a division led to
the occasion of Mr. BROOKES displaying in a most ardent manner that attachment
to the Ministry which he has recently conceived. Mr. PUGH designated the hon.
member Mr. BROOKES as the fifth wheel of the ministerial coach; but here Mr.
PUGH—unintentionally, we are sure—was guilty of a great injustice to an absent
friend. He forgot the prior claims of Mr. TAYLOR, the hon. member for Western
Downs, to act in this capacity. On the behalf of Mr. TAYLOR, we protest against
Mr. BROOKES usurping the “fifth wheel” function until Mr. TAYLOR has formally
resigned all claims to the post of honor. Promotion by gradation is presumed to
be the rule in the Civil Service. Mr. BROOKES should not be allowed to snatch
one single laurel leaf from that crown which a long period of devotion to the
Government naturally has caused to appertain to the brow of Mr. TAYLOR. But Mr.
PUGH'S mistake was unintentional, and also was one which we should have been
liable to make had we not had time for mature reflection. In conclusion, the
whole debate bears out the conclusions of Mr. WALSH that, if the present
Ministers are, as they assert, the sole men who can rule the country, it is
high time we had a general election or a change of Ministry. After the
revelations yesterday made, this is the sole result which will satisfy the
electors, and the sooner it is accelerated the better for the colony.
