John Douglas and his involvement in the Steel Rails affair in 1880

An article on John Douglas and his involvement in the Steel Rails affair in 1880. My PhD chapter on this is here

Capricornian (Rockhampton), Saturday 2 October 1880, page 3

THE HON. JOHN DOUGLAS

It is greatly to be feared that the Hon. John Douglas is steadily deteriorating in political morality. Time was when, however much his opinions were differed from, be was almost universally regarded as the incarnation of sincerity, and the very soul of honour. But that time has long since gone past. Ever since he consented to the degradation of continuing office, as the subordinate of the most profligate and brainless of our legislators, Mr. Douglas’s “moral superiority” has assumed a fossilized type to the destruction of whatever influence be would otherwise have continued to wield as the most accomplished and experienced of the Colony’s public men. MR Douglas has still at command a full collection of fine phrases, and under cover of these he of late almost daily advances the most disingenuous, not to say, indecent, insinuations. During the present session he has done his very best to blast the reputations and destroy the power of more than one Minister of the Crown, and his performance would be beyond praise but for the fact that the business in which he is engaged is in its very nature mean and despicable. Surely such a role is quite unworthy of a leading politician of gentle birth and scholarly culture such as Mr. Douglas may undoubtedly claim to be.

The latest discreditable exhibition of the honourable gentleman now under notice is seen in Hansard of Tuesday last. On that day, with a display of something akin to ‘malice afterthought’ this honourable gentleman moved the adjournment of the House to initiate discussions on a matter well-known to be still sub judice. But he did even worse than this. With a fatuous persistency which we hesitate whether to impute to unpardonable ignorance or gross indecency, he calmly set about the work of misconstruing the late judgement of the Supreme Court in the suit of Miles v McIlwraith and circulating through Hansard a series of false conclusions with respect to that judgment.  As by this time most of our readers well know, the judgment in questions was simply on a “demurrer:' in which the plaintiff took exception to the pleas lodged by the defendant. Mr Douglas insisted that not only had the Court pronounced the Premier to be a contractor with the Government, but that he had acknowledged the fact; and also that Chief Justice Lilley had laid down that as a contractor he could not sit in Parliament. Mr. Douglas then proceeded to urge parliament to take the matter into consideration as one gravely affecting its honour. At the same time, with what almost looks like unconscious humour, be admitted that as a partisan he was disqualified from discussing it dispassionately. He 'craved’ that some gentleman not connected with the Opposition — 'some member who cared more for the freedom and independence of Parliament than for the aggrandisement of any contractor or party' — would take the matter into consideration. What high-flown aimless twaddle all this surely is. How absurd that the oldest politician in the House should thus gratuitously all its members while pretending to invoke the free play of their deepest moral feelings. But he went farther. After expressing his wonderment at the situation, he affirmed that “the highest court of which we have any knowledge, seemed to assert that-the Premier is a contractor, and disqualified to sit in Parliament.  He then solemnly appealed to the Premier to 'purge himself' whatever' that may mean, regardless of consequences to himself or the country. Which means, that in the middle of a most important session the Ministry should be broken up, and the business of the colony indefinitely postponed, in order that the Hon. John Douglas may again display his incompetence on the Treasury Benches. Surely this unfortunate colony has already suffered too much by this gentleman's limpet-like adhesiveness to office to permit either Parliament or people contemplating his early return to office without a. shudder.

There might be some excuse for Mr. Douglas had be thought fit to proceed in the manner dictated by common sense and justifies by parliamentary precedent. His obvious course, if any action in the Assembly was justifiable — was to take a substantive resolution affirming the disqualification of the Premier, or referring the matter for investigation by the Committee of Elections. Had be taken that course be might with same show of reason have appealed to me impartiality of honourable members and entreated them to record a just judgement. Bat such a course was altogether too straightforward for the honourable John. What he wanted was to occupy the first page of Hansard with a disingenuous and garbled version of the judgement, with a view to excite public feeling against the Premier, destroy his reputation and undermine his influence. His capacity in this way had been already proved by partisan summary published by him in the Courier of Mr. Thomas Hamilton’s evidence before the Select Committee. That evidence, until neutralised by subsequent cross-examination, was a carefully concocted and damaging libel on the Premier, but Mr. Douglas did not find the cross-examination worthy of his facile pen. Under the pretence of securing publicity for a Parliamentary inquiry, he in an illicit and clandestine manner, published falsehoods which he desired to scatter broadcast through the colony. 

That attained, his anxiety for publicity ceased. He has never published a line of the evidence or any abstract from it, since it was laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and was available for publication in a legitimate manner, and it is evident that he has no intention to do so. He has set himself to pose as a patriot of the purest water in the first page of Hansard, and on the assumption that if mud is skilfully thrown some of it must stick, he has descended to that mean occupation. We think, however, that both Parliament and the country are beginning to estimate this honourable member at his true value, and that his concoctions’ will not be swallowed by any but the most credulous without a free admixture of salt.

The conduct of the Opposition in this matter leads to the conclusion that they do not intend to proceed to trial. It is known that the venerable plaintiff already complains bitterly of the law costs imposed upon him in this fighting the battle of his party in the Supreme Court and that an attempt has been made to procure the sinews of war by initiating a public subscription. Possibly by that means the Premier may yet be farther harassed, but his position is certainly in no way endangered. He has more than enough political vitality to carry him safely through the consequences of this blow below the belt; and his pocket is perhaps as well able to furnish the law costs as is the subscription of his adversaries. But his position is nevertheless one demanding public sympathy. A Premier bent on initiating and carrying through a bold and dangerous policy has quite enough to contend against without those wretched and unjustifiable attacks upon his political integrity and personal honour. We, for our part, do not doubt that he will survive the trying ordeal, and will yet live to see his traducers put to shame and confusion.

John Douglas and the Queensland 'Steel Rails' controversy of 1880

This post deals with ‘steel rails’ petition of William Hemmant, a former Queensland colonial treasurer and prominent merchant, then resident in London. Samuel Griffith presented it in the Queensland parliament on 6 July 1880.[1]

While this matter has long been forgotten, this petition, relating to the purchase and delivery of railway lines to Queensland, generated immense controversy and intrigue throughout the colony and is well worth revisiting. This post recounts the events from the perspective of the role John Douglas, the ex Queensland premier, played.

In January 1880 the Queensland government had invited tenders for 15,000 tons of steel rails, with the Haslam Engineering Company obtaining the contract at £9 18s 6d per ton. William Henry Ashwell, executive engineer to the Queensland government, was a shareholder in this company, and McIlwraith had travelled to London specifically to negotiate the contract. Two of the largest manufacturing firms had not been asked to tender, one of whom was manufacturing the same rails at £6 per ton. It was further alleged that the Haslam Engineering Company were not rail makers, and were obtaining the rails elsewhere at £8 per ton.[2]

Tenders were also invited for the conveyance of the rails to the colony on the condition that tenders would only be accepted if they were for “full ships direct.”[3] This was an unusual stipulation, for it was well-known that ships carrying other cargo, in addition to rails, would have quoted a lower price. The successful tenderer was Messrs. McIlwraith, McEachern and Co, a company owned by the premier’s brother Andrew, one in which the premier was a shareholder. It also had the contract for conveying immigrants to Queensland.[4] A further irregularity was that, despite the price being negotiated on the condition that the ships only carried steel rails and not any other cargo, this never happened. As well, there was a serious conflict of interest because the premier, the colonial secretary, Arthur Palmer, and Mr. Ashwell, were registered as joint owners of shares in several of the vessels executing the contract, including the Scottish Hero.[5]

Based on this information, William Miles, a member of the opposition, had writs issued in the Supreme Court against McIlwraith and Palmer, for “illegally holding their seats, they being registered shareholders in vessels under contract to the Queensland government for the conveyance of cargo.” If found guilty, the penalty was £500 per day for anyone “proved to sit in the house after he has entered into such a contract.”[6]

The allegations that McIlwraith and members of his ministry had acted illegally and made enormous profits at the colony’s expense led to bitter controversy that was exploited by the opposition for all it was worth.[7] A select committee was appointed to investigate the alleged scandal, with the majority dismissing the allegations.[8] The opposition strenuously objected to these findings, the result of which was a royal commission being established in London,[9] where, despite Griffith personally travelling to London during the parliamentary recess and acting as honorary consul for Hemmant, McIlwraith was exonerated.[10]

Douglas’s involvement in the scandal was through his membership of the select committee,[11] whose hearings were held in secret and to which the press was not admitted.[12] This course of events was strongly opposed by Douglas, who believed that the deliberations of select committees should be open to both the public and the press. In his words, “if freedom of reporting was allowed in the house [then] it should be in committees.”[13]

On 29 July 1880, he introduced a resolution in parliament to this effect, but it was lost by 24 votes to 12.[14]

For most people this would have been the end of the matter, but not Douglas. He believed that the public interest was paramount, and therefore the public had a right to know the committee’s deliberations. Accordingly, on 2 August 1880 he submitted, through a letter to the Brisbane Courier, a transcript of the report of the proceedings of the committee.[15] This action contravened standing order No. 161 and resulted in a breach of parliamentary privilege.[16] During a lengthy debate the following day, parliament deliberated on the question of whether or not Douglas was guilty of contempt. Douglas was prepared for this, for in his letter to the paper he had averred that:

If its publication is a breach of privilege I accept the consequences, and shall endeavour to maintain my position thus asserted in the cause of truth and of honest administration, which is now in grievous peril.[17]

And this he did, informing the parliament that:

It was preferable to break the standing orders of the house itself rather than yield to what I believe to be a course which might imperil the public interest.[18]

Despite a strong and spirited defence by Griffith and the rest of the opposition, Douglas was found “guilty of contempt” for having “wilfully disobeyed an order of this assembly.”[19] The next day he continued his defiant stance. While he conceded that he might have broken the “doubtful interpretation” attached to the standing orders, Douglas did not believe that he was guilty of contempt.[20] Instead, he argued that “he had a right to do what he did: and on no other grounds could he justify to his conscience the action he had taken.”[21]

It was hardly surprising then, that, when asked by the speaker to apologise for this breach of standing orders, he refused to do so. It was Douglas at his most obstinate and independent. In many ways, it was also Douglas at his best. He stood by his beliefs, no matter how dire the consequences. It would have been a stirring sight to see the patriarch of the parliament – for he was then its longest serving member[22] - defy the speaker and the house, once more putting principle before politics. Nevertheless, while it may have been noble it was also futile, because he was bound to fail. Standing orders are employed by parliaments for sound reasons. Without them, parliaments would descend into chaos, their democratic values threatened.

This episode clearly demonstrated that the Queensland parliamentary system as then constituted was unable to accommodate adequately a principled politician such as Douglas. He would have been the first to recognise this, and would also have understood, and accepted, that the institution of parliament was greater than any individual. As for his actions in this matter, Douglas considered that being censured by the parliament for breaching its standing orders was sufficient punishment for his actions.

As he himself had observed in 1865 in parliament, when the member for Mitchell, John Gore Jones, apologised to parliament after being found in breach of parliamentary privilege for publishing a stinging attack on remarks made in parliament by a fellow member:[23]

Supposing that the honourable member for Mitchell did add to this insult the further injury of refusing to admit that he has been wrong, could we place ourselves in a better position by sentencing him to a fine, or imprisonment for a week or a fortnight, or anything of that kind? Would that be a stronger condemnation than what we have passed? The honourable member is not punishable by this House by fine and imprisonment, if he is not punished now. He is, and I trust deservedly, punished by the censure the House have passed on him.[24]

It would have come as a shock then, when the premier moved a motion that Douglas “Be committed into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms for removal from the house.”[25]

An active and animated debate followed,[26] with Griffith spiritedly, eloquently and passionately defending Douglas, and with the attorney general, Henry Rogers Beor, expressing the view that Douglas could not be punished because “the fault was committed outside the house.”[27] Accordingly, McIlwraith had no choice but to withdraw his motion and Douglas survived to fight another day.[28]

While the Brisbane Courier portrayed Douglas’s actions as a victory for freedom and for the right to have open select committee enquiries,[29] to all extents and purposes this event signalled the end of Douglas’s political career, although he still contributed to the parliament, for example calling for a royal commission to investigate the conduct of the native police towards Aborigines.[30] The parliamentary session ended soon afterwards, concluding what had been “a very angry and personal session.”[31]

[1] Queensland 1900: A Narrative of Her Past, Together With Biographies of Her Leading Men, p. 149. The petition was “Making Certain Statements with Regard to Contracts Recently Entered in England for the Purchase of Steel Rails for the Queensland Government, and Praying Inquiry.” (Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 1, 1880, p. 405.) The original correspondence, (Hemmant to Griffith 17 April 1880, pp. 184-98 & 30 April 1880, pp. 200-2,) is held in the Griffith Papers, Dixson Library, State Library of New South Wales, MSQ 185.

[2] Queenslander. “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, pp. 160-61; Bernays, p. 87; Fitzgerald, pp. 312-13

[3] Queenslander. “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, p. 160

[4] Charles Bernays, Queensland Politics during Sixty (1859-1919) Years.  Brisbane, Government Printer, 1920, p. 87

[5] Queenslander. “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, pp. 160-61; Bernays, p. 87; Fitzgerald, pp. 312-13

[6] “Summary for Europe.” Brisbane Courier, 7 August 1880, p. 6. Miles subsequently lost this court action. (See, “Our Queensland Letter.” Town and Country, 10 September 1881, p. 494; Dignan, p. 96)

[7] Bernays, p. 87; “Summary for Europe.” Brisbane Courier, 7 August 1880, p. 6; “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, pp. 160-61. Three evenings of the debate on the address of the governor were entirely devoted to this subject, with the vice-regal speech scarcely rating a mention and the government’s policy agenda ignored.

[8] “Report of the Select Committee on the Contract for, and Carriage of Steel Rails: Mr Hemmants Petition, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.” Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 2, 1880, pp. 760-956

[9] “Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Take Further Evidence in England to Report on the Allegations Contained in Mr. Hemmant’s Petition and all Matters Connected Therewith, Together with the Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.” Queensland Votes and Proceedings, 1880, vol 2, pp. 403-801

[10] “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, p. 160; Bernays, p. 87; Our First Half Century: A Review of Queensland Progress Based Upon Official Information, p. 24

[11] Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 1, 1880, p. 407. Its full title was the Select Committee on Contract for, and Carriage of Steel Rails, Mr. Hemmant’s Petition, Queensland Parliament, and it was established on 15 July 1880.

[12] “Six Years of Queensland Politics.” Victorian Review, vol 8, June 1883, pp. 161. On 23 July 1880 a reporter from the Telegraph had asked to be admitted but was refused. (“Report of the Select Committee on the Contract for, and Carriage of Steel Rails: Mr Hemmants Petition, Together with the Proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence.” Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 2, 1880, p. 760)

[13] Mr. Douglas. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 269

[14] Mr. Douglas. “Select Committees.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 247. The motion moved by Douglas was, “that in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the proceedings of select committees, except when deliberating, should be open to the public.” (Mr. Douglas. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 269)

[15] John Douglas. “The Steel Rail Committee.” Brisbane Courier, 2 August 1880, p. 3. The full letter is reproduced in Appendix 5. The précis of proceedings was for Friday 23 July 1880. Not surprisingly, the Brisbane Courier weighed in with a lengthy editorial supporting both Douglas’s and its own actions. (Brisbane Courier, 3 August 1880, p. 2)

[16] The Premier. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 268. McIlwraith moved the motion that Douglas, “having wilfully disobeyed a lawful order of this assembly, is therefore guilty of contempt.” (Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 1, 1880, p. 59.) Standing order no. 161 stated that, “the evidence taken by any select committee of this house, and documents presented to such committee, and which have not been reported to this house, shall not be published by any member of such committee, not by any other person.” (The Premier. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 268)

[17] John Douglas. “The Steel Rail Committee.” Brisbane Courier, 2 August 1880, p. 3

[18] Mr. Douglas. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 269

[19] “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 286; Bernays, p. 88. The vote was 19 to 13 against Douglas, and he was found guilty of contempt under standing order 103. The standing order stated that: “Any member or other person who shall wilfully disobey any lawful order of the assembly, and any member or other person who shall wilfully or vexatiously interrupt the orderly conduct of business of the assembly shall be guilty of contempt.” (The Premier. “Privilege.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 268)

[20] Mr. Douglas. “Contempt.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 291

[21] Ibid., p. 292

[22] Mason’s research revealed that not one of the men who sat with Douglas in his first session in the Queensland parliament in 1864 were still members in 1880. (Mason, p. 176)

[23] ”Question of Privilege,“ Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 2, 1865, pp. 502-8

[24] John Douglas. “Question of Privilege,“ Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 2, 1865, p. 507

[25] The Premier. “Contempt.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 292

[26] Bernays, p. 88; “Contempt.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, pp. 291-96

[27] “Contempt.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 32, 1880, p. 296

[28] Ibid. Despite his censure by parliament, Douglas continued to vigorously prosecute this matter. He enquired of McIlwraith whether he had authority to act as premier while in England (Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 2, 1880, p. 743), and asked numerous questions about the Scottish Hero. (Queensland Votes and Proceedings, vol 2, 1880, pp. 741-42)

[29] Brisbane Courier, 5 August 1880, p. 2

[30] “The Native Police.” Queensland Parliamentary Debates, vol 33, 1880, pp. 1130-45; Henry Reynolds. An Indelible Stain: The Question of Genocide in Australia’s History. Melbourne, Viking, 2001, pp. 106-7; William Ross Johnston, The Long Blue Line: A History of the Queensland Police. Brisbane, Boolarong Publications, 1992, p. 97. This royal commission was not established and the debate was adjourned to a future date.

[31] Brisbane Courier, 19 November 1880, p. 3

---